ArticleJournal of proteome research2025
Improved Detection of Differentially Abundant Proteins through FDR-Control of Peptide-Identity-Propagation.
Article in Journal of proteome research, 2025. 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.
- Recent Advances in Omics Technology in Food Flavor.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Directed evolution of APOX for proximity labeling using phenols with high redox potentials.Cell chemical biology · 2026Article
- The XylC-mediated aromatic metabolic network modulates the metabolic response of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to deltamethrin.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Trends in Mass Spectrometry-Based Single-Cell Proteomics.Analytical chemistry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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 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 statistically rigorous method for estimating its false-discovery rate (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 data sets, 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 data sets. When analyzing a spike-in data set, PIP-ECHO increases both the accuracy and sensitivity of differential expression analysis, yielding substantially more differentially abundant proteins than either MaxQuant or IonQuant.
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.