Literature DB >> 34246788

Deep learning for peptide identification from metaproteomics datasets.

Shichao Feng1, Ryan Sterzenbach2, Xuan Guo3.   

Abstract

Metaproteomics is becoming widely used in microbiome research for gaining insights into the functional state of the microbial community. Current metaproteomics studies are generally based on high-throughput tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) coupled with liquid chromatography. In this paper, we proposed a deep-learning-based algorithm, named DeepFilter, for improving peptide identifications from a collection of tandem mass spectra. The key advantage of the DeepFilter is that it does not need ad hoc training or fine-tuning as in existing filtering tools. DeepFilter is freely available under the GNU GPL license at https://github.com/Biocomputing-Research-Group/DeepFilter. SIGNIFICANCE: The identification of peptides and proteins from MS data involves the computational procedure of searching MS/MS spectra against a predefined protein sequence database and assigning top-scored peptides to spectra. Existing computational tools are still far from being able to extract all the information out of MS/MS data sets acquired from metaproteome samples. Systematical experiment results demonstrate that the DeepFilter identified up to 12% and 9% more peptide-spectrum-matches and proteins, respectively, compared with existing filtering algorithms, including Percolator, Q-ranker, PeptideProphet, and iProphet, on marine and soil microbial metaproteome samples with false discovery rate at 1%. The taxonomic analysis shows that DeepFilter found up to 7%, 10%, and 14% more species from marine, soil, and human gut samples compared with existing filtering algorithms. Therefore, DeepFilter was believed to generalize properly to new, previously unseen peptide-spectrum-matches and can be readily applied in peptide identification from metaproteomics data.
Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CNN; Deep learning; Peptide identification; Tandem mass spectrometry

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34246788      PMCID: PMC8435027          DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2021.104316

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Proteomics        ISSN: 1874-3919            Impact factor:   3.855


  38 in total

1.  Can the false-discovery rate be misleading?

Authors:  Rodrigo Barboza; Daniel Cociorva; Tao Xu; Valmir C Barbosa; Jonas Perales; Richard H Valente; Felipe M G França; John R Yates; Paulo C Carvalho
Journal:  Proteomics       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 3.984

2.  Improved classification of mass spectrometry database search results using newer machine learning approaches.

Authors:  Peter J Ulintz; Ji Zhu; Zhaohui S Qin; Philip C Andrews
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2005-11-30       Impact factor: 5.911

3.  Exhaustive database searching for amino acid mutations in proteomes.

Authors:  Doug Hyatt; Chongle Pan
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2012-05-10       Impact factor: 6.937

4.  iProphet: multi-level integrative analysis of shotgun proteomic data improves peptide and protein identification rates and error estimates.

Authors:  David Shteynberg; Eric W Deutsch; Henry Lam; Jimmy K Eng; Zhi Sun; Natalie Tasman; Luis Mendoza; Robert L Moritz; Ruedi Aebersold; Alexey I Nesvizhskii
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 5.911

5.  A decoy-free approach to the identification of peptides.

Authors:  Giulia Gonnelli; Michiel Stock; Jan Verwaeren; Davy Maddelein; Bernard De Baets; Lennart Martens; Sven Degroeve
Journal:  J Proteome Res       Date:  2015-03-06       Impact factor: 4.466

6.  Metaproteomics reveals functional differences in intestinal microbiota development of preterm infants.

Authors:  Romy D Zwittink; Diny van Zoeren-Grobben; Rocio Martin; Richard A van Lingen; Liesbeth J Groot Jebbink; Sjef Boeren; Ingrid B Renes; Ruurd M van Elburg; Clara Belzer; Jan Knol
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2017-07-06       Impact factor: 5.911

Review 7.  Searching for a needle in a stack of needles: challenges in metaproteomics data analysis.

Authors:  Thilo Muth; Dirk Benndorf; Udo Reichl; Erdmann Rapp; Lennart Martens
Journal:  Mol Biosyst       Date:  2013-04-05

8.  Deep Metaproteomics Approach for the Study of Human Microbiomes.

Authors:  Xu Zhang; Wendong Chen; Zhibin Ning; Janice Mayne; David Mack; Alain Stintzi; Ruijun Tian; Daniel Figeys
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2017-08-11       Impact factor: 6.986

9.  The PRIDE database and related tools and resources in 2019: improving support for quantification data.

Authors:  Yasset Perez-Riverol; Attila Csordas; Jingwen Bai; Manuel Bernal-Llinares; Suresh Hewapathirana; Deepti J Kundu; Avinash Inuganti; Johannes Griss; Gerhard Mayer; Martin Eisenacher; Enrique Pérez; Julian Uszkoreit; Julianus Pfeuffer; Timo Sachsenberg; Sule Yilmaz; Shivani Tiwary; Jürgen Cox; Enrique Audain; Mathias Walzer; Andrew F Jarnuczak; Tobias Ternent; Alvis Brazma; Juan Antonio Vizcaíno
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 16.971

10.  Critical decisions in metaproteomics: achieving high confidence protein annotations in a sea of unknowns.

Authors:  Emma Timmins-Schiffman; Damon H May; Molly Mikan; Michael Riffle; Chris Frazar; H R Harvey; William S Noble; Brook L Nunn
Journal:  ISME J       Date:  2016-11-08       Impact factor: 10.302

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  The Intestinal Microbiota May Be a Potential Theranostic Tool for Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Marina Di Domenico; Andrea Ballini; Mariarosaria Boccellino; Salvatore Scacco; Roberto Lovero; Ioannis Alexandros Charitos; Luigi Santacroce
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2022-03-24

2.  Microbial Proteins in Stomach Biopsies Associated with Gastritis, Ulcer, and Gastric Cancer.

Authors:  Shahid Aziz; Faisal Rasheed; Tayyab Saeed Akhter; Rabaab Zahra; Simone König
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-08-24       Impact factor: 4.927

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.