ArticleJournal of proteomics2026
Comparative performance of Scribe and database search engines in metaproteomic profiling of a ground-truth microbiome dataset.
Article in Journal of proteomics, 2026. 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mass spectrometry-based metaproteomics, the identification and quantification of thousands of proteins expressed by complex microbial communities, has become pivotal for unraveling functional interactions within microbiomes. However, metaproteomics data analysis encounters many challenges, including the search of tandem mass spectra against a protein sequence database using proteomics database search algorithms. We used a ground-truth dataset to assess a spectral library searching method against established database searching approaches. Mass spectrometry data collected by data-dependent acquisition (DDA-MS) was analyzed using database searching approaches (MaxQuant and FragPipe), as well as using Scribe with Prosit predicted spectral libraries. We used FASTA databases that included protein sequences from microbial species present in the ground-truth dataset along with background protein sequences, to estimate error rates and assess the effects on detection, peptide-spectral match quality, and quantification. Using the Scribe search engine resulted in more proteins detected at a 1 % false discovery rate (FDR) compared to MaxQuant or FragPipe, while FragPipe detected more peptides verified by PepQuery. Scribe was able to detect more low-abundance proteins in the microbiome dataset and was more accurate in quantifying the microbial community composition. This research provides insights and guidance for metaproteomics researchers aiming to optimize results in their analysis of DDA-MS data. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY: Metaproteomics requires a balance between high numbers of peptide and protein identification and confidence in the accuracy of the identifications made. We demonstrate the utility of the Scribe search engine for metaproteomics applications, as it was found to detect low-abundance proteins with accurate quantitation than other DDA-MS search engines. This tool has great utility for both novel metaproteomics studies as well as hypothesis-generating experiments using previously acquired open source proteomics raw data.
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.