ArticleJournal of proteome research2015
Ranking Fragment Ions Based on Outlier Detection for Improved Label-Free Quantification in Data-Independent Acquisition LC-MS/MS.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A shrinkage-based statistical method for testing group mean differences in quantitative bottom-up proteomics.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- PeakDecoder enables machine learning-based metabolite annotation and accurate profiling in multidimensional mass spectrometry measurements.Nature communications · 2023Article
- SWATH-MS for metabolomics and lipidomics: critical aspects of qualitative and quantitative analysis.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2020Review
- The Skyline ecosystem: Informatics for quantitative mass spectrometry proteomics.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2020Review
- Combining Precursor and Fragment Information for Improved Detection of Differential Abundance in Data Independent Acquisition.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2020Article
- Article
- Specter: linear deconvolution for targeted analysis of data-independent acquisition mass spectrometry proteomics.Nature methods · 2018Article
- An algorithm to correct saturated mass spectrometry ion abundances for enhanced quantitation and mass accuracy in omic studies.International journal of mass spectrometry · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Data-independent acquisition LC-MS/MS techniques complement supervised methods for peptide quantification. However, due to the wide precursor isolation windows, these techniques are prone to interference at the fragment ion level, which, in turn, is detrimental for accurate quantification. The nonoutlier fragment ion (NOFI) ranking algorithm has been developed to assign low priority to fragment ions affected by interference. By using the optimal subset of high-priority fragment ions, these interfered fragment ions are effectively excluded from quantification. NOFI represents each fragment ion as a vector of four dimensions related to chromatographic and MS fragmentation attributes and applies multivariate outlier detection techniques. Benchmarking conducted on a well-defined quantitative data set (i.e., the SWATH Gold Standard) indicates that NOFI on average is able to accurately quantify 11-25% more peptides than the commonly used Top-N library intensity ranking method. The sum of the area of the Top3-5 NOFIs produces similar coefficients of variation as compared to that with the library intensity method but with more accurate quantification results. On a biologically relevant human dendritic cell digest data set, NOFI properly assigns low-priority ranks to 85% of annotated interferences, resulting in sensitivity values between 0.92 and 0.80, against 0.76 for the Spectronaut interference detection algorithm.
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.