Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35549218›Full record

ArticleJournal of proteome research2022

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Consensus Spectrum Generation Methods in Proteomics.

Xiyang Luo, Wout Bittremieux, Johannes Griss, Eric W Deutsch, Timo Sachsenberg, Lev I Levitsky, Mark V Ivanov, Julia A Bubis, Ralf Gabriels, Henry Webel and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of proteome research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

14 authors.

Xiyang LuoChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 400065 Chongqing, China.
Wout BittremieuxSkaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3105-1359
Johannes GrissEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-2206-9511
Eric W DeutschInstitute for Systems Biology (ISB), Seattle, Washington 98109, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8732-0928
Timo SachsenbergApplied Bioinformatics, Department for Computer Science, University of Tuebingen, Sand 14, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2833-6070
Lev I LevitskyV.L. Talrose Institute for Energy Problems of Chemical Physics, N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 142432, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-4048-0876
Mark V IvanovV.L. Talrose Institute for Energy Problems of Chemical Physics, N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 142432, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4762-2846
Julia A BubisV.L. Talrose Institute for Energy Problems of Chemical Physics, N.N. Semenov Federal Research Center for Chemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow 142432, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-4895-6146
Ralf GabrielsVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, B-9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1679-1711
Henry WebelNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen DK-2200, Denmark.
Aniel SanchezSection for Clinical Chemistry, Department of Translational Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, 20502 Malmö, Sweden.
Mingze BaiChongqing Key Laboratory of Big Data for Bio Intelligence, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 400065 Chongqing, China.
Lukas KällScience for Life Laboratory, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health, Royal Institute of Technology - KTH, Box 1031, 17121 Solna, Sweden.
Yasset Perez-RiverolEuropean Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Wellcome Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, U.K.ORCID 0000-0001-6579-6941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spectrum clustering is a powerful strategy to minimize redundant mass spectra by grouping them based on similarity, with the aim of forming groups of mass spectra from the same repeatedly measured analytes. Each such group of near-identical spectra can be represented by its so-called consensus spectrum for downstream processing. Although several algorithms for spectrum clustering have been adequately benchmarked and tested, the influence of the consensus spectrum generation step is rarely evaluated. Here, we present an implementation and benchmark of common consensus spectrum algorithms, including spectrum averaging, spectrum binning, the most similar spectrum, and the best-identified spectrum. We have analyzed diverse public data sets using two different clustering algorithms (spectra-cluster and MaRaCluster) to evaluate how the consensus spectrum generation procedure influences downstream peptide identification. The BEST and BIN methods were found the most reliable methods for consensus spectrum generation, including for data sets with post-translational modifications (PTM) such as phosphorylation. All source code and data of the present study are freely available on GitHub at https://github.com/statisticalbiotechnology/representative-spectra-benchmark.

Indexed as

ProteomicsTandem Mass SpectrometryAlgorithmsCluster AnalysisConsensusDatabases, ProteinSoftwarebenchmarkbig dataclusteringconsensus spectramass spectrometrypride databaseProteomeXchangespectral libraries

Identifiers

PMID35549218
PMCPMC9171829

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.