Comparative Analysis of Data-Driven Rescoring Platforms for Improved Peptide Identification in HeLa Digest Samples

IF 3.9 4区 生物学 Q2 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS Proteomics Pub Date : 2025-02-02 DOI:10.1002/pmic.202400225
Jesus D. Castaño, Francis Beaudry
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Data-Driven Rescoring Platforms for Improved Peptide Identification in HeLa Digest Samples","authors":"Jesus D. Castaño,&nbsp;Francis Beaudry","doi":"10.1002/pmic.202400225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mass spectrometry is a critical tool to understand complex changes in biological processes. Despite significant advances in search engine technology, many spectra remain unassigned. This research evaluates the performance of three rescoring platforms, Oktoberfest, MS<sup>2</sup>Rescore, and inSPIRE, using MaxQuant output. The results indicated a substantial increase in identifications at the peptide level (40%–53%) and PSM level (64%–67%). However, some peptides were lost due to limitations in processing posttranslational modifications (PTMs)—with up to 75% of lost peptides exhibiting PTMs. Each platform displayed distinct strengths and weaknesses. For instance, inSPIRE performed best in terms of peptide identifications and unique peptides, while MS<sup>2</sup>Rescore performed better for PSMs at higher FDR values. Differences in platform performance stemmed from different sources: original search engine feature selection, type of ion series predicted, retention time predictor, and PTMs compatibility. Overall, inSPIRE showed a superior ability to harness original search engine results. Taken all together, rescoring platforms clearly outperformed original search results; however, they demanded additional computation time (up to 77%) and manual adjustments. The findings here underline the necessity of integrating rescoring platforms into current proteomics pipelines but also address some challenges in their implementation and optimization. Future integrated platforms may help enhance adoption.</p>","PeriodicalId":224,"journal":{"name":"Proteomics","volume":"25 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pmic.202400225","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proteomics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pmic.202400225","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mass spectrometry is a critical tool to understand complex changes in biological processes. Despite significant advances in search engine technology, many spectra remain unassigned. This research evaluates the performance of three rescoring platforms, Oktoberfest, MS2Rescore, and inSPIRE, using MaxQuant output. The results indicated a substantial increase in identifications at the peptide level (40%–53%) and PSM level (64%–67%). However, some peptides were lost due to limitations in processing posttranslational modifications (PTMs)—with up to 75% of lost peptides exhibiting PTMs. Each platform displayed distinct strengths and weaknesses. For instance, inSPIRE performed best in terms of peptide identifications and unique peptides, while MS2Rescore performed better for PSMs at higher FDR values. Differences in platform performance stemmed from different sources: original search engine feature selection, type of ion series predicted, retention time predictor, and PTMs compatibility. Overall, inSPIRE showed a superior ability to harness original search engine results. Taken all together, rescoring platforms clearly outperformed original search results; however, they demanded additional computation time (up to 77%) and manual adjustments. The findings here underline the necessity of integrating rescoring platforms into current proteomics pipelines but also address some challenges in their implementation and optimization. Future integrated platforms may help enhance adoption.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
数据驱动评分平台在HeLa消化样品中改进多肽鉴定的比较分析。
质谱法是了解生物过程中复杂变化的关键工具。尽管搜索引擎技术取得了重大进展,但许多频谱仍未分配。本研究使用MaxQuant输出评估了三个评分平台,Oktoberfest, MS2Rescore和inSPIRE的性能。结果表明,在肽水平(40% ~ 53%)和PSM水平(64% ~ 67%)上的鉴定显著增加。然而,由于处理翻译后修饰(PTMs)的限制,一些肽丢失-高达75%的丢失肽显示PTMs。每个平台都显示出不同的优势和劣势。例如,inSPIRE在肽鉴定和独特肽方面表现最好,而MS2Rescore在更高的FDR值下对psm表现更好。平台性能的差异源于不同的来源:原始搜索引擎功能选择、预测的离子系列类型、留存时间预测器和ptm兼容性。总的来说,inSPIRE显示出了利用原始搜索引擎结果的卓越能力。综合来看,评分平台的表现明显优于原始搜索结果;然而,它们需要额外的计算时间(高达77%)和手动调整。这些发现强调了将评分平台整合到当前蛋白质组学管道中的必要性,但也解决了其实施和优化中的一些挑战。未来的集成平台可能有助于提高采用率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Proteomics
Proteomics 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
193
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: PROTEOMICS is the premier international source for information on all aspects of applications and technologies, including software, in proteomics and other "omics". The journal includes but is not limited to proteomics, genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics and lipidomics, and systems biology approaches. Papers describing novel applications of proteomics and integration of multi-omics data and approaches are especially welcome.
期刊最新文献
Assessing Discrepancies in miRNA Profiles of Mouse Blood-Derived Extracellular Vesicles: A Systematic Review of Sequencing Data. Proteome-Wide Analysis of Palmitoylated Proteins in Macrophages Reveals Novel Insights Into Early Immune Signaling. Progress of Deep Learning Prediction of CD8+ T-Cell Epitopes. Performance Characteristics of Zeno Trap Scanning DIA for Sensitive and Quantitative Proteomics at High Throughput. Time-Enduring Proteomic Fidelity in Over 30-Year-Old FFPE Tissues: Distinct Proteomic Signatures of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Adjacent Non-Tumor Liver Tissue.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1