ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
False discovery rate estimation using candidate peptides for each spectrum.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing peptide identification in metaproteomics through curriculum learning in deep learning.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Understanding the mechanism behind preoperative exercise therapy in patients with gastrointestinal cancers: a prospective randomized clinical trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Characterization of host cell proteins in the downstream process of plant-Based biologics using LC-MS profiling.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFalse discovery rate (FDR) estimation is very important in proteomics. The target-decoy strategy (TDS), which is often used for FDR estimation, estimates the FDR under the assumption that when spectra are identified incorrectly, the probabilities of the spectra matching the target or decoy peptides are identical. However, no spectra matching target or decoy peptide probabilities are identical. We propose cTDS (target-decoy strategy with candidate peptides) for accurate estimation of the FDR using the probability that the spectrum is identified incorrectly as a target or decoy peptide.
resultsMost spectrum cases result in a probability of having the spectrum identified incorrectly as a target or decoy peptide of close to 0.5, but only about 1.14-4.85% of the total spectra have an exact probability of 0.5. We used an entrapment sequence method to demonstrate the accuracy of cTDS. For fixed FDR thresholds (1-10%), the false match rate (FMR) in cTDS is closer than the FMR in TDS. We compared the number of peptide-spectrum matches (PSMs) obtained with TDS and cTDS at a 1% FDR threshold with the HEK293 dataset. In the first and third replications, the number of PSMs obtained with cTDS for the reverse, pseudo-reverse, shuffle, and de Bruijn databases exceeded those obtained with TDS (about 0.001-0.132%), with the pseudo-shuffle database containing less compared to TDS (about 0.05-0.126%). In the second replication, the number of PSMs obtained with cTDS for all databases exceeds that obtained with TDS (about 0.013-0.274%).
conclusionsWhen spectra are actually identified incorrectly, most probabilities of the spectra matching a target or decoy peptide are not identical. Therefore, we propose cTDS, which estimates the FDR more accurately using the probability of the spectrum being identified incorrectly as a target or decoy peptide.
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.