Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31699904›Full record

ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2020

Reproducibility, Specificity and Accuracy of Relative Quantification Using Spectral Library-based Data-independent Acquisition.

Katalin Barkovits, Sandra Pacharra, Kathy Pfeiffer, Simone Steinbach, Martin Eisenacher, Katrin Marcus, Julian Uszkoreit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing papers in PubMed
–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

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Computational and Statistical Framework for Quantitative Proteomics Analysis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Effect of Boiling onFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Tear fluid proteomics: a comparative study of DIA and DDA mass spectrometry.Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab · 2025
    Article

29 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Katalin BarkovitsRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany.
Sandra PacharraRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany.
Kathy PfeifferRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany.
Simone SteinbachRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany.
Martin EisenacherRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany.
Katrin MarcusRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: katrin.marcus@ruhr-uni-bochum.de.
Julian UszkoreitRuhr University Bochum, Faculty of Medicine, Medizinisches Proteom-Center, Bochum, Germany. Electronic address: julian.uszkoreit@rub.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently data-dependent acquisition (DDA) is the method of choice for mass spectrometry-based proteomics discovery experiments, but data-independent acquisition (DIA) is steadily becoming more important. One of the most important requirements to perform a DIA analysis is the availability of suitable spectral libraries for peptide identification and quantification. Several studies were performed addressing the evaluation of spectral library performance for protein identification in DIA measurements. But so far only few experiments estimate the effect of these libraries on the quantitative level.In this work we created a gold standard spike-in sample set with known contents and ratios of proteins in a complex protein matrix that allowed a detailed comparison of DIA quantification data obtained with different spectral library approaches. We used in-house generated sample-specific spectral libraries created using varying sample preparation approaches and repeated DDA measurement. In addition, two different search engines were tested for protein identification from DDA data and subsequent library generation. In total, eight different spectral libraries were generated, and the quantification results compared with a library free method, as well as a default DDA analysis. Not only the number of identifications on peptide and protein level in the spectral libraries and the corresponding DIA analysis results was inspected, but also the number of expected and identified differentially abundant protein groups and their ratios.We found, that while libraries of prefractionated samples were generally larger, there was no significant increase in DIA identifications compared with repetitive non-fractionated measurements. Furthermore, we show that the accuracy of the quantification is strongly dependent on the applied spectral library and whether the quantification is based on peptide or protein level. Overall, the reproducibility and accuracy of DIA quantification is superior to DDA in all applied approaches.Data has been deposited to the ProteomeXchange repository with identifiers PXD012986, PXD012987, PXD012988 and PXD014956.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyPeptide LibraryAnimalsCell LineChromatography, LiquidDatabases, ProteinMiceMyoblastsPeptidesProteinsProteomeProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, ProteinSoftwarePeptide LibraryPeptidesProteinsProteomeBioinformatics softwaredata-independent acquisition (DIA)Label-free quantificationMass Spectrometrypeptide identificationproteomicsQuantificationspectral libraryTarget identification

Identifiers

PMID31699904
PMCPMC6944235

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.