ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2024
A learned score function improves the power of mass spectrometry database search.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Framework for Database Search with AI Models in Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics.Journal of proteome research · 2026Review
- De novo peptide databases enable protein-based stable isotope probing of microbial communities with up to species-level resolution.Environmental microbiome · 2025Article
- Recent Advances in Mass Spectrometry-Based Bottom-Up Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationOne of the core problems in the analysis of protein tandem mass spectrometry data is the peptide assignment problem: determining, for each observed spectrum, the peptide sequence that was responsible for generating the spectrum. Two primary classes of methods are used to solve this problem: database search and de novo peptide sequencing. State-of-the-art methods for de novo sequencing use machine learning methods, whereas most database search engines use hand-designed score functions to evaluate the quality of a match between an observed spectrum and a candidate peptide from the database. We hypothesized that machine learning models for de novo sequencing implicitly learn a score function that captures the relationship between peptides and spectra, and thus may be re-purposed as a score function for database search. Because this score function is trained from massive amounts of mass spectrometry data, it could potentially outperform existing, hand-designed database search tools.
resultsTo test this hypothesis, we re-engineered Casanovo, which has been shown to provide state-of-the-art de novo sequencing capabilities, to assign scores to given peptide-spectrum pairs. We then evaluated the statistical power of this Casanovo score function, Casanovo-DB, to detect peptides on a benchmark of three mass spectrometry runs from three different species. In addition, we show that re-scoring with the Percolator post-processor benefits Casanovo-DB more than other score functions, further increasing the number of detected peptides.
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.