Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349410›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Evaluating the impact of different sequence databases on metaproteome analysis: insights from a lab-assembled microbial mixture.

Alessandro Tanca, Antonio Palomba, Massimo Deligios, Tiziana Cubeddu, Cristina Fraumene, Grazia Biosa, Daniela Pagnozzi, Maria Filippa Addis, Sergio Uzzau

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Microbial Omics.Progress in molecular and subcellular biology · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors.

Alessandro TancaPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy ; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Antonio PalombaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Massimo DeligiosPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy ; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Tiziana CubedduPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy.
Cristina FraumenePorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy.
Grazia BiosaPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy.
Daniela PagnozziPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy.
Maria Filippa AddisPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy ; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Sergio UzzauPorto Conte Ricerche Srl, Tramariglio, Alghero, Italy ; Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metaproteomics enables the investigation of the protein repertoire expressed by complex microbial communities. However, to unleash its full potential, refinements in bioinformatic approaches for data analysis are still needed. In this context, sequence databases selection represents a major challenge. This work assessed the impact of different databases in metaproteomic investigations by using a mock microbial mixture including nine diverse bacterial and eukaryotic species, which was subjected to shotgun metaproteomic analysis. Then, both the microbial mixture and the single microorganisms were subjected to next generation sequencing to obtain experimental metagenomic- and genomic-derived databases, which were used along with public databases (namely, NCBI, UniProtKB/SwissProt and UniProtKB/TrEMBL, parsed at different taxonomic levels) to analyze the metaproteomic dataset. First, a quantitative comparison in terms of number and overlap of peptide identifications was carried out among all databases. As a result, only 35% of peptides were common to all database classes; moreover, genus/species-specific databases provided up to 17% more identifications compared to databases with generic taxonomy, while the metagenomic database enabled a slight increment in respect to public databases. Then, database behavior in terms of false discovery rate and peptide degeneracy was critically evaluated. Public databases with generic taxonomy exhibited a markedly different trend compared to the counterparts. Finally, the reliability of taxonomic attribution according to the lowest common ancestor approach (using MEGAN and Unipept software) was assessed. The level of misassignments varied among the different databases, and specific thresholds based on the number of taxon-specific peptides were established to minimize false positives. This study confirms that database selection has a significant impact in metaproteomics, and provides critical indications for improving depth and reliability of metaproteomic results. Specifically, the use of iterative searches and of suitable filters for taxonomic assignments is proposed with the aim of increasing coverage and trustworthiness of metaproteomic data.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinBacteriaBacterial ProteinsMetalloproteinsMicrobial ConsortiaProteomeSequence Analysis, ProteinBacterial ProteinsMetalloproteinsProteome

Identifiers

PMID24349410
PMCPMC3857319

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.