ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2015
An Optimized Informatics Pipeline for Mass Spectrometry-Based Peptidomics.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Origins, Technological Advancement, and Applications of Peptidomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Optimizing metaproteomics database construction: lessons from a study of the vaginal microbiome.mSystems · 2023Article
- Recent advances in mass spectrometry analysis of neuropeptides.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2023Review
- Developing mass spectrometry for the quantitative analysis of neuropeptides.Expert review of proteomics · 2021Review
- Characterization of the Ovarian Tumor Peptidome.Vitamins and hormones · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The comprehensive MS analysis of the peptidome, the intracellular and intercellular products of protein degradation, has the potential to provide novel insights on endogenous proteolytic processing and its utility in disease diagnosis and prognosis. Along with the advances in MS instrumentation and related platforms, a plethora of proteomics data analysis tools have been applied for direct use in peptidomics; however, an evaluation of the currently available informatics pipelines for peptidomics data analysis has yet to be reported. In this study, we began by evaluating the results of several popular MS/MS database search engines, including MS-GF+, SEQUEST, and MS-Align+, for peptidomics data analysis, followed by identification and label-free quantification using the well-established accurate mass and time (AMT) tag and newly developed informed quantification (IQ) approaches, both based on direct LC-MS analysis. Our results demonstrated that MS-GF+ outperformed both SEQUEST and MS-Align+ in identifying peptidome peptides. Using a database established from MS-GF+ peptide identifications, both the AMT tag and IQ approaches provided significantly deeper peptidome coverage and less missing data for each individual data set than the MS/MS methods, while achieving robust label-free quantification. Besides having an excellent correlation with the AMT tag quantification results, IQ also provided slightly higher peptidome coverage. Taken together, we propose an optimized informatics pipeline combining MS-GF+ for initial database searching with IQ (or AMT tag) approaches for identification and label-free quantification for high-throughput, comprehensive, and quantitative peptidomics analysis. Graphical Abstract ᅟ.
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.