Paper detail

A likelihood-based scoring method for peptide identification using mass spectrometry

Mass spectrometry provides a high-throughput approach to identify proteins in biological samples. A key step in the analysis of mass spectrometry data is to identify the peptide sequence that, most probably, gave rise to each observed spectrum. This is often tackled using a database search: each observed spectrum is compared against a large number of theoretical "expected" spectra predicted from candidate peptide sequences in a database, and the best match is identified using some heuristic scoring criterion. Here we provide a more principled, likelihood-based, scoring criterion for this problem. Specifically, we introduce a probabilistic model that allows one to assess, for each theoretical spectrum, the probability that it would produce the observed spectrum. This probabilistic model takes account of peak locations and intensities, in both observed and theoretical spectra, which enables incorporation of detailed knowledge of chemical plausibility in peptide identification. Besides placing peptide scoring on a sounder theoretical footing, the likelihood-based score also has important practical benefits: it provides natural measures for assessing the uncertainty of each identification, and in comparisons on benchmark data it produced more accurate peptide identifications than other methods, including SEQUEST. Although we focus here on peptide identification, our scoring rule could easily be integrated into any downstream analyses that require peptide-spectrum match scores.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.