ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2026
Benchmarking Software for DDA-PASEF Immunopeptidomics.
Article in Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS) is the method of choice for high-throughput identification of immunopeptides, which are generated by intracellular proteases, unlike proteomics peptides that are typically derived from trypsin-digested proteins. Therefore, the searching space for immunopeptides is not limited by proteolytic specificity, requiring more sophisticated software algorithms to handle the increased complexity. Despite the widespread use of MS in immunopeptidomics, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of data processing software, making it challenging to identify the optimal solution. In this study, we provide a comprehensive benchmarking of the most widespread/used data-dependent acquisition-based software platforms for immunopeptidomics: MaxQuant (https://maxquant.org/), FragPipe (https://fragpipe.nesvilab.org/), PEAKS (https://www.bioinfor.com/peaks-software/) and major histocompatibility complexquant. The evaluation was conducted using data obtained from the JY cell line using the Thunder-data-dependent acquisition-parallel accumulation and serial fragmentation method. We assessed each software's ability to identify immunopeptides and compared their identification confidence. Additionally, we examined potential biases in the results and tested the impact of database size on immunopeptide identification efficiency. Our findings demonstrate that all software platforms successfully identify the most prominent subset of immunopeptides with 1% false discovery rate control, achieving medium to high identification confidence correlations. The largest number of immunopeptides was identified using the commercial PEAKS software, which is closely followed by FragPipe, making it a viable non-commercial alternative. However, we observed that larger database sizes negatively impacted the performance of some software platforms more than others. These results provide valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of current MS data processing tools for immunopeptidomics, supporting the immunopeptidomics/MS community in determining the right choice of software.
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.