Estimating probabilities of peptide database identifications to LC-FTICR-MS observations

12Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The field of proteomics involves the characterization of the peptides and proteins expressed in a cell under specific conditions. Proteomics has made rapid advances in recent years following the sequencing of the genomes of an increasing number of organisms. A prominent technology for high throughput proteomics analysis is the use of liquid chromatography coupled to Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (LC-FTICR-MS). Meaningful biological conclusions can best be made when the peptide identities returned by this technique are accompanied by measures of accuracy and confidence. Methods: After a tryptically digested protein mixture is analyzed by LC-FTICR-MS, the observed masses and normalized elution times of the detected features are statistically matched to the theoretical masses and elution times of known peptides listed in a large database. The probability of matching is estimated for each peptide in the reference database using statistical classification methods assuming bivariate Gaussian probability distributions on the uncertainties in the masses and the normalized elution times. Results: A database of 69,220 features from 32 LC-FTICR-MS analyses of a tryptically digested bovine serum albumin (BSA) sample was matched to a database populated with 97% false positive peptides. The percentage of high confidence identifications was found to be consistent with other database search procedures. BSA database peptides were identified with high confidence on average in 14.1 of the 32 analyses. False positives were identified on average in just 2.7 analyses. Conclusion: Using a priori probabilities that contrast peptides from expected and unexpected proteins was shown to perform better in identifying target peptides than using equally likely a priori probabilities. This is because a large percentage of the target peptides were similar to unexpected peptides which were included to be false positives. The use of triplicate analyses with a "2 out of 3" reporting rule was shown to have excellent rejection of false positives. © 2006 Anderson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Figures

  • Table 1: High confidence peptide identifications across 32 analyses using 50:1 relative prior probabilities.
  • Table 2: High confidence peptide identifications across 32 analyses using equally likely prior probabilities.
  • Table 3: High confidence peptide identifications across 32 analyses using 50:1 relative prior probabilities without the Shewanella peptides in the PMT tag database

References Powered by Scopus

An approach to correlate tandem mass spectral data of peptides with amino acid sequences in a protein database

5753Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Empirical statistical model to estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications made by MS/MS and database search

4118Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An accurate mass tag strategy for quantitative and high-throughput proteome measurements

412Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

VIPER: An advanced software package to support high-throughput LC-MS peptide identification

171Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Comparative proteomics of human monkeypox and vaccinia intracellular mature and extracellular enveloped virions

84Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Improved quality control processing of peptide-centric LC-MS proteomics data

81Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Anderson, K. K., Monroe, M. E., & Daly, D. S. (2006). Estimating probabilities of peptide database identifications to LC-FTICR-MS observations. Proteome Science, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-4-1

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘16‘17‘20‘21‘2200.751.52.253

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 5

50%

Researcher 5

50%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Chemistry 3

33%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3

33%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 2

22%

Computer Science 1

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0