ArticleJournal of proteome research2018
A Protein Standard That Emulates Homology for the Characterization of Protein Inference Algorithms.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Protein Identification in Shotgun Proteomics with a Group-Level Extension of the LPGF Model.Journal of proteome research · 2026Article
- Classification of Collagens via Peptide Ambiguation, in a Paleoproteomic LC-MS/MS-Based Taxonomic Pipeline.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Protein Inference Analysis with PyProteinInference Elucidates Biological Understanding of Tandem Mass Spectrometry Data.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Relative quantification of proteins and post-translational modifications in proteomic experiments with shared peptides: a weight-based approach.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Quality Control in the Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Core: A Practical Primer.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2024Article
- Observations from the Proteomics Bench.Proteomes · 2024Article
- ProInfer: An interpretable protein inference tool leveraging on biological networks.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Enhanced protein isoform characterization through long-read proteogenomics.Genome biology · 2022Article
- A Review of the Scientific Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency Studies Conducted by the ABRF Research Groups.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 2020Review
- EPIFANY: A Method for Efficient High-Confidence Protein Inference.Journal of proteome research · 2020Article
- Beyond mass spectrometry, the next step in proteomics.Science advances · 2020Review
- Integrated Identification and Quantification Error Probabilities for Shotgun Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2019Article
- ABRF Proteome Informatics Research Group (iPRG) 2016 Study: Inferring Proteoforms from Bottom-up Proteomics Data.Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT · 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 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
A natural way to benchmark the performance of an analytical experimental setup is to use samples of known composition and see to what degree one can correctly infer the content of such a sample from the data. For shotgun proteomics, one of the inherent problems of interpreting data is that the measured analytes are peptides and not the actual proteins themselves. As some proteins share proteolytic peptides, there might be more than one possible causative set of proteins resulting in a given set of peptides and there is a need for mechanisms that infer proteins from lists of detected peptides. A weakness of commercially available samples of known content is that they consist of proteins that are deliberately selected for producing tryptic peptides that are unique to a single protein. Unfortunately, such samples do not expose any complications in protein inference. Hence, for a realistic benchmark of protein inference procedures, there is a need for samples of known content where the present proteins share peptides with known absent proteins. Here, we present such a standard, that is based on E. coli expressed human protein fragments. To illustrate the application of this standard, we benchmark a set of different protein inference procedures on the data. We observe that inference procedures excluding shared peptides provide more accurate estimates of errors compared to methods that include information from shared peptides, while still giving a reasonable performance in terms of the number of identified proteins. We also demonstrate that using a sample of known protein content without proteins with shared tryptic peptides can give a false sense of accuracy for many protein inference methods.
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.