ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2012
Refining comparative proteomics by spectral counting to account for shared peptides and multiple search engines.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Deciphering Radiotherapy Resistance: A Proteomic Perspective.Proteomes · 2025Review
- Quality Control in the Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Core: A Practical Primer.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2024Article
- Proteomic analysis of colon and rectal carcinoma using standard and customized databases.Scientific data · 2015Article
- Identification of proteins at active, stalled, and collapsed replication forks using isolation of proteins on nascent DNA (iPOND) coupled with mass spectrometry.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2013Article
- IDPQuantify: combining precursor intensity with spectral counts for protein and peptide quantification.Journal of proteome research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Spectral counting has become a widely used approach for measuring and comparing protein abundance in label-free shotgun proteomics. However, when analyzing complex samples, the ambiguity of matching between peptides and proteins greatly affects the assessment of peptide and protein inventories, differentiation, and quantification. Meanwhile, the configuration of database searching algorithms that assign peptides to MS/MS spectra may produce different results in comparative proteomic analysis. Here, we present three strategies to improve comparative proteomics through spectral counting. We show that comparing spectral counts for peptide groups rather than for protein groups forestalls problems introduced by shared peptides. We demonstrate the advantage and flexibility of this new method in two datasets. We present four models to combine four popular search engines that lead to significant gains in spectral counting differentiation. Among these models, we demonstrate a powerful vote counting model that scales well for multiple search engines. We also show that semi-tryptic searching outperforms tryptic searching for comparative proteomics. Overall, these techniques considerably improve protein differentiation on the basis of spectral count tables.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.