Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22552787›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2012

Refining comparative proteomics by spectral counting to account for shared peptides and multiple search engines.

Yao-Yi Chen, Surendra Dasari, Ze-Qiang Ma, Lorenzo J Vega-Montoto, Ming Li, David L Tabb

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yao-Yi ChenDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical School, Nashville, TN 37232-8575, USA.
Surendra Dasari
Ze-Qiang Ma
Lorenzo J Vega-Montoto
Ming Li
David L Tabb

Funding

Vanberbilt Biomarker Developmental LaboratoryU01CA152647 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI LIEBLER, DANIEL C, TABB, DAVID L · 2010 to 2014
$3.1M
New Proteomic Algorithms to Identify Mutant or Modified ProteinsR01CA126218 · NCI · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI TABB, DAVID L · 2006 to 2010
$1.8M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA126218NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152647
6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsDatabases, ProteinEscherichia coli ProteinsHumansPeptidesProteinsProteomicsSearch EngineSoftwareEscherichia coli ProteinsPeptidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID22552787
PMCPMC3717168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.