Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23176207›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012

False discovery rates in spectral identification.

Kyowon Jeong, Sangtae Kim, Nuno Bandeira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing 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

72 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. False Discovery Estimation in Record Linkage.Statistics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Synergistic Arg-C Ultra and Lys-C Digestion for Quantitative Proteomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Critical evaluation of the use of artificial data for machine learning basedComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  20. Article

12 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Kyowon JeongDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Sangtae Kim
Nuno Bandeira

Funding

TrainingP41GM103484 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PEVZNER, PAVEL A · 2012 to 2018
$8.7M
CENTER FOR COMPUTATIONAL MASS-SPECTROMETRYP41RR024851 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO · PI PEVZNER, PAVEL A · 2008 to 2011
$5.2M
NCRR NIH HHS 1-P41-RR024851NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103484
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Automated database search engines are one of the fundamental engines of high-throughput proteomics enabling daily identifications of hundreds of thousands of peptides and proteins from tandem mass (MS/MS) spectrometry data. Nevertheless, this automation also makes it humanly impossible to manually validate the vast lists of resulting identifications from such high-throughput searches. This challenge is usually addressed by using a Target-Decoy Approach (TDA) to impose an empirical False Discovery Rate (FDR) at a pre-determined threshold x% with the expectation that at most x% of the returned identifications would be false positives. But despite the fundamental importance of FDR estimates in ensuring the utility of large lists of identifications, there is surprisingly little consensus on exactly how TDA should be applied to minimize the chances of biased FDR estimates. In fact, since less rigorous TDA/FDR estimates tend to result in more identifications (at higher 'true' FDR), there is often little incentive to enforce strict TDA/FDR procedures in studies where the major metric of success is the size of the list of identifications and there are no follow up studies imposing hard cost constraints on the number of reported false positives. Here we address the problem of the accuracy of TDA estimates of empirical FDR. Using MS/MS spectra from samples where we were able to define a factual FDR estimator of 'true' FDR we evaluate several popular variants of the TDA procedure in a variety of database search contexts. We show that the fraction of false identifications can sometimes be over 10× higher than reported and may be unavoidably high for certain types of searches. In addition, we further report that the two-pass search strategy seems the most promising database search strategy. While unavoidably constrained by the particulars of any specific evaluation dataset, our observations support a series of recommendations towards maximizing the number of resulting identifications while controlling database searches with robust and reproducible TDA estimation of empirical FDR.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, ProteinPeptidesProteinsProteomicsSearch EngineTandem Mass SpectrometryPeptidesProteins

Identifiers

PMID23176207
PMCPMC3489529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.