Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24344789›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteome research2014

Fast and accurate database searches with MS-GF+Percolator.

Viktor Granholm, Sangtae Kim, José C F Navarro, Erik Sjölund, Richard D Smith, Lukas Käll

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of proteome research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Open-Source and FAIR Research Software for Proteomics.Journal of proteome research · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Plant stress and proteomics in medicinal plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. MSMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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.

Viktor GranholmDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Science for Life Laboratory, Stockholm University , Solna, Sweden.
Sangtae Kim
José C F Navarro
Erik Sjölund
Richard D Smith
Lukas Käll

Funding

Equipment Supplement Request for a Research Resource for Ultra-sensitive High Throughput ProteomicsP41GM103493 · NIGMS · BATTELLE PACIFIC NORTHWEST LABORATORIES · PI SMITH, RICHARD D · 2012 to 2022
$22.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS P41 GM103493
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One can interpret fragmentation spectra stemming from peptides in mass-spectrometry-based proteomics experiments using so-called database search engines. Frequently, one also runs post-processors such as Percolator to assess the confidence, infer unique peptides, and increase the number of identifications. A recent search engine, MS-GF+, has shown promising results, due to a new and efficient scoring algorithm. However, MS-GF+ provides few statistical estimates about the peptide-spectrum matches, hence limiting the biological interpretation. Here, we enabled Percolator processing for MS-GF+ output and observed an increased number of identified peptides for a wide variety of data sets. In addition, Percolator directly reports p values and false discovery rate estimates, such as q values and posterior error probabilities, for peptide-spectrum matches, peptides, and proteins, functions that are useful for the whole proteomics community.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinInformation Storage and RetrievalAlgorithmsMass Spectrometry

Identifiers

PMID24344789
PMCPMC3975676

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.