ArticleJournal of proteome research2022
Improving Peptide-Level Mass Spectrometry Analysis via Double Competition.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Viral Mutation Profiling and Discovery Strategy for Sensitive Multiplex Detection of Viruses and Variants in Saliva by Proteomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Query Mix-Max Method for FDR Estimation Supported by Entrapment Queries.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- PyViscount: Validating False Discovery Rate Estimation Methods via Random Search Space Partition.Journal of proteome research · 2025Article
- Detection and Quantification of Drug-Protein Adducts in Human Liver.Journal of proteome research · 2024Article
- Data-Independent Acquisition: A Milestone and Prospect in Clinical Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Review
- A learned score function improves the power of mass spectrometry database search.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The analysis of shotgun proteomics data often involves generating lists of inferred peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) and/or of peptides. The canonical approach for generating these discovery lists is by controlling the false discovery rate (FDR), most commonly through target-decoy competition (TDC). At the PSM level, TDC is implemented by competing each spectrum's best-scoring target (real) peptide match with its best match against a decoy database. This PSM-level procedure can be adapted to the peptide level by selecting the top-scoring PSM per peptide prior to FDR estimation. Here, we first highlight and empirically augment a little known previous work by He et al., which showed that TDC-based PSM-level FDR estimates can be liberally biased. We thus propose that researchers instead focus on peptide-level analysis. We then investigate three ways to carry out peptide-level TDC and show that the most common method ("PSM-only") offers the lowest statistical power in practice. An alternative approach that carries out a double competition, first at the PSM and then at the peptide level ("PSM-and-peptide"), is the most powerful method, yielding an average increase of 17% more discovered peptides at 1% FDR threshold relative to the PSM-only method.
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.