ArticleJournal of proteome research2012
Learning score function parameters for improved spectrum identification in tandem mass spectrometry experiments.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cost-sensitive online learning method for peptide identification.BMC genomics · 2020Article
- Data-independent-acquisition mass spectrometry for identification of targeted-peptide site-specific modifications.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2015Article
- COOH-terminal collagen Q (COLQ) mutants causing human deficiency of endplate acetylcholinesterase impair the interaction of ColQ with proteins of the basal lamina.Human genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The identification of proteins from spectra derived from a tandem mass spectrometry experiment involves several challenges: matching each observed spectrum to a peptide sequence, ranking the resulting collection of peptide-spectrum matches, assigning statistical confidence estimates to the matches, and identifying the proteins. The present work addresses algorithms to rank peptide-spectrum matches. Many of these algorithms, such as PeptideProphet, IDPicker, or Q-ranker, follow a similar methodology that includes representing peptide-spectrum matches as feature vectors and using optimization techniques to rank them. We propose a richer and more flexible feature set representation that is based on the parametrization of the SEQUEST XCorr score and that can be used by all of these algorithms. This extended feature set allows a more effective ranking of the peptide-spectrum matches based on the target-decoy strategy, in comparison to a baseline feature set devoid of these XCorr-based features. Ranking using the extended feature set gives 10-40% improvement in the number of distinct peptide identifications relative to a range of q-value thresholds. While this work is inspired by the model of the theoretical spectrum and the similarity measure between spectra used specifically by SEQUEST, the method itself can be applied to the output of any database search. Further, our approach can be trivially extended beyond XCorr to any linear operator that can serve as similarity score between experimental spectra and peptide sequences.
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.