ArticleMolecular & cellular proteomics : MCP2026
Assessing the Performance of Mass Spectrometry Search Strategies in Identifying Translational Errors Using PDX Proteomics Data.
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. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- ProteoformTracker: an interactive tool for planning proteoform detectability in top-down and middle-down proteomics.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Translational errors (TEs) result in a mismatch between mRNA codons and the amino acids (AAs) of the corresponding protein. Unlike DNA mutations or RNA editing, where nucleotide sequences can be used to infer AA substitutions, TEs can only be detected at the protein level. Although high-throughput mass spectrometry (MS) proteomics offers the potential to resolve peptide sequences and could theoretically be used to identify TEs, the feasibility of current MS data analysis approaches for this application remains uncertain. Here, we utilize patient-derived xenograft proteomics data, which include both human and mouse peptides with identifiable cross-species AA variations, as a ground truth for benchmarking TE identification methods. By using high-confidence mouse peptides as surrogates for "TE-containing" peptides, we show that current open search approaches can achieve >65% overall sensitivity and >70% overall precision for high-quality samples. The intersection of different search strategies significantly enhances precision, albeit at the expense of reduced sensitivity. Notably, the evaluation metrics vary significantly across individual AA substitutions, suggesting that caution is warranted when detecting or interpreting specific AA substitutions. Moreover, closed searches targeting predefined AA changes exhibit poor precision, with post-translational modification mislocalization identified as a key bottleneck for this application. Overall, our study provides a first-of-its-kind benchmark for MS-based TE discovery and offers guidance for optimizing MS search strategies.
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.