ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2015
Using SEQUEST with theoretically complete sequence databases.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mass spectrometry imaging tutorial: From cancer biomarker discovery to clinical applications.Analytica chimica acta · 2026Review
- Multiomics analysis revealed the temporally common and specific molecular changes in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) under salt stress.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Biochemical characterization of the feedforward loop between CDK1 and FOXM1 in epidermal stem cells.Biology direct · 2024Article
- Protein turnover models for LC-MS data of heavy water metabolic labeling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- A Critical Review of Bottom-Up Proteomics: The Good, the Bad, and the Future of this Field.Proteomes · 2020Review
- Poisson Model To Generate Isotope Distribution for Biomolecules.Journal of proteome research · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
SEQUEST has long been used to identify peptides/proteins from their tandem mass spectra and protein sequence databases. The algorithm has proven to be hugely successful for its sensitivity and specificity in identifying peptides/proteins, the sequences of which are present in the protein sequence databases. In this work, we report on work that attempts a new use for the algorithm by applying it to search a complete list of theoretically possible peptides, a de novo-like sequencing. We used freely available mass spectral data and determined a number of unique peptides as identified by SEQUEST. Using masses of these peptides and the mass accuracy of 0.001 Da, we have created a database of all theoretically possible peptide sequences corresponding to the precursor masses. We used our recently developed algorithm for determining all amino acid compositions corresponding to a mass interval, and used a lexicographic ordering to generate theoretical sequences from the compositions. The newly generated theoretical database was many-fold more complex than the original protein sequence database. We used SEQUEST to search and identify the best matches to the spectra from all theoretically possible peptide sequences. We found that SEQUEST cross-correlation score ranked the correct peptide match among the top sequence matches. The results testify to the high specificity of SEQUEST when combined with the high mass accuracy for intact peptides. 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.