Evaluation of the Consensus of Four Peptide Identification
Algorithms for Tandem Mass Spectrometry Based Proteomics |
| Ruben K. Dagda1, Tamanna Sultana2, James Lyons-Weiler2,3* |
| 1Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, PA |
| 2Bioinformatics Analysis Core, Genomics and Proteomics Core Laboratories, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA |
| 3Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA |
| *Corresponding author: |
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, 2Bioinformatics Analysis
Core,
Genomics and Proteomics Core Laboratories,
University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA,
Tel: 412-728-8743,
Fax: 412-648-1891,
E-mail: jim@bioinformatics.pitt.edu |
|
| Received November 04, 2009; Accepted February 05, 2010; Published
February 05, 2010 |
| Citation: Dagda RK, Sultana T, Lyons-Weiler J (2010) Evaluation of the Consensus of Four Peptide Identification Algorithms for Tandem Mass Spectrometry Based Proteomics. J Proteomics Bioinform 3: 039-047. doi:10.4172/jpb.1000119 |
| Copyright: © 2010 Dagda RK, et al. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
| Abstract |
The availability of different scoring schemes and filter settings
of protein database search algorithms has greatly expanded
the number of search methods for identifying candidate
peptides from MS/MS spectra. We have previously
shown that consensus-based methods that combine three
search algorithms yield higher sensitivity and specificity compared
to the use of a single search engine (individual method).
We hypothesized that union of four search engines (Sequest,
Mascot, X-tandem! and Phenyx) can further enhance sensitivity
and specificity. ROC plots were generated to measure
the sensitivity and specificity of 5460 consensus methods
derived from the same dataset. We found that Mascot
outperformed individual methods for sensitivity and specificity,
while Phenyx performed the worst. The union consensus
methods generally produced much higher sensitivity,
while the intersection consensus methods gave much higher
specificity. The union methods from four search algorithms
modestly improved sensitivity, but not specificity, compared
to union methods that used three search engines. This suggests
that a strategy based on specific combination of search
algorithms, instead of merely ‘as many search engines as
possible’, may be key strategy for success with peptide identification.
Lastly, we provide strategies for optimizing sensitivity
or specificity of peptide identification in MS/MS spectra
for different user-specific conditions. |
|
|
|