OMICS PUBLISHING GROUP
About this Journal Contact this Journal Current issue Archive Search Quick Search
OMICS Publishing Group  »  Life Sciences    »    Volume 3.2  

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.

 
This Article
» Full Text (PDF)
» 
Full Text (HTML)
Services
» Similar articles in scholar google
» Similar articles in Pub Med
Google Scholar
» Articles by Ruben K. Dagda
» Articles by Tamanna Sultana
» Articles by James Lyons-Weiler
Pub Med
» Articles by Ruben K. Dagda
» Articles by Tamanna Sultana
» Articles by James Lyons-Weiler