Literature DB >> 29631402

A Protein Standard That Emulates Homology for the Characterization of Protein Inference Algorithms.

Matthew The1, Fredrik Edfors1, Yasset Perez-Riverol2, Samuel H Payne3, Michael R Hoopmann4, Magnus Palmblad5, Björn Forsström1, Lukas Käll1.   

Abstract

A natural way to benchmark the performance of an analytical experimental setup is to use samples of known composition and see to what degree one can correctly infer the content of such a sample from the data. For shotgun proteomics, one of the inherent problems of interpreting data is that the measured analytes are peptides and not the actual proteins themselves. As some proteins share proteolytic peptides, there might be more than one possible causative set of proteins resulting in a given set of peptides and there is a need for mechanisms that infer proteins from lists of detected peptides. A weakness of commercially available samples of known content is that they consist of proteins that are deliberately selected for producing tryptic peptides that are unique to a single protein. Unfortunately, such samples do not expose any complications in protein inference. Hence, for a realistic benchmark of protein inference procedures, there is a need for samples of known content where the present proteins share peptides with known absent proteins. Here, we present such a standard, that is based on E. coli expressed human protein fragments. To illustrate the application of this standard, we benchmark a set of different protein inference procedures on the data. We observe that inference procedures excluding shared peptides provide more accurate estimates of errors compared to methods that include information from shared peptides, while still giving a reasonable performance in terms of the number of identified proteins. We also demonstrate that using a sample of known protein content without proteins with shared tryptic peptides can give a false sense of accuracy for many protein inference methods.

Entities:  

Keywords:  benchmark; homology; mass spectrometry; peptide; protein inference; protein standard; proteofom; proteomics; sample of known content

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29631402      PMCID: PMC6474350          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00899

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Proteome Res        ISSN: 1535-3893            Impact factor:   4.466


  31 in total

1.  What to do with "one-hit wonders"?

Authors:  Timothy D Veenstra; Thomas P Conrads; Haleem J Issaq
Journal:  Electrophoresis       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.535

2.  Interpretation of shotgun proteomic data: the protein inference problem.

Authors:  Alexey I Nesvizhskii; Ruedi Aebersold
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2005-07-11       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  Evaluation of multidimensional chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/LC-MS/MS) for large-scale protein analysis: the yeast proteome.

Authors:  Junmin Peng; Joshua E Elias; Carson C Thoreen; Larry J Licklider; Steven P Gygi
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.466

4.  High-speed data reduction, feature detection, and MS/MS spectrum quality assessment of shotgun proteomics data sets using high-resolution mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Michael R Hoopmann; Gregory L Finney; Michael J MacCoss
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2007-06-21       Impact factor: 6.986

5.  Semi-supervised learning for peptide identification from shotgun proteomics datasets.

Authors:  Lukas Käll; Jesse D Canterbury; Jason Weston; William Stafford Noble; Michael J MacCoss
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2007-10-21       Impact factor: 28.547

6.  MaxQuant enables high peptide identification rates, individualized p.p.b.-range mass accuracies and proteome-wide protein quantification.

Authors:  Jürgen Cox; Matthias Mann
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2008-11-30       Impact factor: 54.908

7.  Rapid and accurate peptide identification from tandem mass spectra.

Authors:  Christopher Y Park; Aaron A Klammer; Lukas Käll; Michael J MacCoss; William S Noble
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 4.466

8.  Towards a human proteome atlas: high-throughput generation of mono-specific antibodies for tissue profiling.

Authors:  Peter Nilsson; Linda Paavilainen; Karin Larsson; Jenny Odling; Mårten Sundberg; Ann-Catrin Andersson; Caroline Kampf; Anja Persson; Cristina Al-Khalili Szigyarto; Jenny Ottosson; Erik Björling; Sophia Hober; Henrik Wernérus; Kenneth Wester; Fredrik Pontén; Mathias Uhlen
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 3.984

9.  The standard protein mix database: a diverse data set to assist in the production of improved Peptide and protein identification software tools.

Authors:  John Klimek; James S Eddes; Laura Hohmann; Jennifer Jackson; Amelia Peterson; Simon Letarte; Philip R Gafken; Jonathan E Katz; Parag Mallick; Hookeun Lee; Alexander Schmidt; Reto Ossola; Jimmy K Eng; Ruedi Aebersold; Daniel B Martin
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 4.466

10.  ProteoWizard: open source software for rapid proteomics tools development.

Authors:  Darren Kessner; Matt Chambers; Robert Burke; David Agus; Parag Mallick
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2008-07-07       Impact factor: 6.937

View more
  6 in total

1.  Integrated Identification and Quantification Error Probabilities for Shotgun Proteomics.

Authors:  Matthew The; Lukas Käll
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 5.911

Review 2.  A Review of the Scientific Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency Studies Conducted by the ABRF Research Groups.

Authors:  Sheenah M Mische; Nancy C Fisher; Susan M Meyn; Katia Sol-Church; Rebecca L Hegstad-Davies; Frances Weis-Garcia; Marie Adams; John M Ashton; Kym M Delventhal; Julie A Dragon; Laura Holmes; Pratik Jagtap; Kristopher E Kubow; Christopher E Mason; Magnus Palmblad; Brian C Searle; Christoph W Turck; Kevin L Knudtson
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2020-04

3.  ABRF Proteome Informatics Research Group (iPRG) 2016 Study: Inferring Proteoforms from Bottom-up Proteomics Data.

Authors:  Joon-Yong Lee; Hyungwon Choi; Christopher M Colangelo; Darryl Davis; Michael R Hoopmann; Lukas Käll; Henry Lam; Samuel H Payne; Yasset Perez-Riverol; Matthew The; Ryan Wilson; Susan T Weintraub; Magnus Palmblad
Journal:  J Biomol Tech       Date:  2018-06-21

4.  EPIFANY: A Method for Efficient High-Confidence Protein Inference.

Authors:  Julianus Pfeuffer; Timo Sachsenberg; Tjeerd M H Dijkstra; Oliver Serang; Knut Reinert; Oliver Kohlbacher
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2020-02-13       Impact factor: 4.466

5.  Enhanced protein isoform characterization through long-read proteogenomics.

Authors:  Rachel M Miller; Ben T Jordan; Madison M Mehlferber; Erin D Jeffery; Christina Chatzipantsiou; Simi Kaur; Robert J Millikin; Yunxiang Dai; Simone Tiberi; Peter J Castaldi; Michael R Shortreed; Chance John Luckey; Ana Conesa; Lloyd M Smith; Anne Deslattes Mays; Gloria M Sheynkman
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 13.583

Review 6.  Beyond mass spectrometry, the next step in proteomics.

Authors:  Winston Timp; Gregory Timp
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 14.136

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.