ArticleJournal of proteome research2024
Quantifying the Impact of the Peptide Identification Framework on the Results of Fast Photochemical Oxidation of Protein Analysis.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Covalent Labeling Automated Data Analysis Platform for High Throughput in R (coADAPTr): A Proteome-Wide Data Analysis Platform for Covalent Labeling Experiments.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2024Article
- Data-Independent Acquisition Represents a Promising Alternative for Fast Photochemical Oxidation of Proteins (FPOP) Samples Analysis.Analytical chemistry · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fast Photochemical Oxidation of Proteins (FPOP) is a promising technique for studying protein structure and dynamics. The quality of insight provided by FPOP depends on the reliability of the determination of the modification site. This study investigates the performance of two search engines, Mascot and PEAKS, for the data processing of FPOP analyses. Comparison of Mascot and PEAKS of the hemoglobin--haptoglobin Bruker timsTOF data set (PXD021621) revealed greater consistency in the Mascot identification of modified peptides, with around 26% of the IDs being mutual for all three replicates, compared to approximately 22% for PEAKS. The intersection between Mascot and PEAKS results revealed a limited number (31%) of shared modified peptides. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using the peptide-spectrum match (PSM) score, site probability, and peptide intensity was applied to evaluate the results, and the analyses revealed distinct clusters of modified peptides. Mascot showed the ability to assess confident site determination, even with lower PSM scores. However, high PSM scores from PEAKS did not guarantee a reliable determination of the modification site. Fragmentation coverage of the modification position played a crucial role in Mascot assignments, while the AScore localizations from PEAKS often become ambiguous because the software employs MS/MS merging.
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.