ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Improved detection of differentially abundant proteins through FDR-control of peptide-identity-propagation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of proteomics is to identify and quantify peptides and proteins within a biological sample. Almost all algorithms for the identification of peptides in LC-MS/MS data employ two steps: peptide/spectrum matching and peptide-identity-propagation (PIP), also known as match-between-runs. PIP was originally envisioned as a backup method to overcome measurement stochasticity. However, current PIP implementations can routinely account for up to 40% of all results, with that proportion rising as high as 75% in single-cell proteomics. Unlike peptide identities derived through peptide/spectrum matches, for which error estimation has been strictly enforced for decades, peptide identities derived through PIP have not historically been subject to statistical evaluation. As an indispensable component of label free quantification, PIP needs a simple and statistically rigorous method for estimating its error rates. Although several tools claim to control the false discovery rate (FDR) of PIP, these claims cannot be validated as there is currently no accepted method to assess the accuracy of the stated FDR. We present a method for FDR control of PIP, called PIP-ECHO, and devise a rigorous protocol for evaluating FDR control of any PIP method. Using three different benchmark datasets, we evaluate PIP-ECHO alongside the PIP procedures implemented by FlashLFQ, IonQuant, and MaxQuant. These analyses show that only PIP-ECHO can accurately control the FDR of PIP at 1% across all datasets, including single cell. When analyzing spike-in datasets where different known amounts of yeast or E. coli peptides are added to a constant background of human peptides, PIP-ECHO increases both the accuracy and sensitivity of differential expression analysis, yielding 53% more differentially abundant proteins than MaxQuant and 146% more than IonQuant.
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.