2009
DOI: 10.1021/pr800792z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Novel Decoy Database Designs for Optimizing Protein Identification Searches Using ABRF sPRG2006 Standard MS/MS Data Sets

Abstract: Decoy database searches are used to filter out false positive protein identifications derived from search engines, but there is no consensus about which decoy is "the best". We evaluate nine different decoy designs using public data sets from samples of known composition. Statistically significant performance differences were found, but no single decoy stood out among the best performers. Ultimately, we recommend peptide level reverse decoys searched independently from the target.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
42
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The expectation value was defined as a composite score for the quality assessment of peptide identification, and the FDR of peptide identifications was consequently estimated using target-decoy searching (61). A decoy search independent from the target one was conducted according to a recommended method (62). The E-value thresholds for single isotope-coded peptide identification and double isotope-coded peptide identification were determined to be 0.275 and 1.65, respectively, for FDR Յ 1% (see "Experimental Procedures"; supplemental Fig.…”
Section: Lc-ms/ms-based Phosphopeptide Profiling Of Ethylenetreated Wmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The expectation value was defined as a composite score for the quality assessment of peptide identification, and the FDR of peptide identifications was consequently estimated using target-decoy searching (61). A decoy search independent from the target one was conducted according to a recommended method (62). The E-value thresholds for single isotope-coded peptide identification and double isotope-coded peptide identification were determined to be 0.275 and 1.65, respectively, for FDR Յ 1% (see "Experimental Procedures"; supplemental Fig.…”
Section: Lc-ms/ms-based Phosphopeptide Profiling Of Ethylenetreated Wmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The num-ber of matches to the decoy database, therefore, provides an estimate of the number of random matches one should expect to obtain in the target database. The number of target and decoy hits can then be used to calculate either a local or a global FDR for a given data set (21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26). This general idea can be applied to control the FDR at the level of PSMs, peptides, and proteins, typically by counting the number of target and decoy observations above a specified score.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The dataset was generated by a linear ion trap-orbitrap (LTQ-Orbitrap) mass spectrometer. Additionally, we consider identifications of all expected and 'bonus' proteins to be ground-truth proteins [10].…”
Section: Dataset Twomentioning
confidence: 99%