The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Processing strategies and software solutions for data‐independent acquisition in mass spectrometry
Open accessAbstract
Data‐independent acquisition (DIA) offers several advantages over data‐dependent acquisition (DDA) schemes for characterizing complex protein digests analyzed by LC‐MS/MS. In contrast to the sequential detection, selection, and analysis of individual ions during DDA, DIA systematically parallelizes the fragmentation of all detectable ions within a wide m/z range regardless of intensity, thereby providing broader dynamic range of detected signals, improved reproducibility for identification, better sensitivity, and accuracy for quantification, and, potentially, enhanced proteome coverage. To fully exploit these advantages, composite or multiplexed fragment ion spectra generated by DIA require more elaborate processing algorithms compared to DDA. This review examines different DIA schemes and, in particular, discusses the concepts applied to and related to data processing. Available software implementations for identification and quantification are presented as comprehensively as possible and examples of software usage are cited. Processing workflows, including complete proprietary frameworks or combinations of modules from different open source data processing packages are described and compared in terms of software availability and usability, programming language, operating system support, input/output data formats, as well as the main principles employed in the algorithms used for identification and quantification. This comparative study concludes with further discussion of current limitations and expectable improvements in the short‐ and midterm future.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cox, J., & Mann, M. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1511 · Cited by 14,855
Skyline: an open source document editor for creating and analyzing targeted proteomics experiments
MacLean, B., Tomazela, D. M., Shulman, N., Chambers, M., Finney, G. L., Frewen, B., Kern, R., Tabb, D. L., Liebler, D. C., & MacCoss, M. J. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq054 · Cited by 4,697
Gillet, L. C., Navarro, P., Tate, S., Röst, H., Selevsek, N., Reiter, L., Bonner, R., & Aebersold, R. (2012) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.o111.016717 · Cited by 2,877
Absolute Quantification of Proteins by LCMSE
Silva, J. C., Gorenstein, M. V., Li, G.-Z., Vissers, J. P. C., & Geromanos, S. J. (2006) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m500230-mcp200 · Cited by 1,529
Selected reaction monitoring–based proteomics: workflows, potential, pitfalls and future directions
Picotti, P., & Aebersold, R. (2012) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.2015 · Cited by 1,302
Michalski, A., Cox, J., & Mann, M. (2011) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr101060v · Cited by 685
mProphet: automated data processing and statistical validation for large-scale SRM experiments
Reiter, L., Rinner, O., Picotti, P., Hüttenhain, R., Beck, M., Brusniak, M.-Y., Hengartner, M. O., & Aebersold, R. (2011) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.1584 · Cited by 532
Cited by
The Skyline ecosystem: Informatics for quantitative mass spectrometry proteomics
Pino, L. K., Searle, B. C., Bollinger, J. G., Nunn, B., MacLean, B., & MacCoss, M. J. (2020) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21540 · Cited by 800
A Critical Review of Bottom-Up Proteomics: The Good, the Bad, and the Future of This Field
Dupree, E. J., Jayathirtha, M., Yorkey, H., Mihasan, M., Petre, B. A., & Darie, C. C. (2020) · Proteomes · doi:10.3390/proteomes8030014 · Cited by 353
Advances in targeted proteomics and applications to biomedical research
Shi, T., Song, E., Nie, S., Rodland, K. D., Liu, T., Qian, W., & Smith, R. D. (2016) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201500449 · Cited by 257
Meyer, J. G., & Schilling, B. (2017) · Expert Review of Proteomics · doi:10.1080/14789450.2017.1322904 · Cited by 151
Goeminne, L. E., Gevaert, K., & Clement, L. (2016) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m115.055897 · Cited by 110
Metadata
- Authors
- Bilbao, A., Varesio, E., Luban, J., Strambio‐De‐Castillia, C., Hopfgartner, G., Müller, M., & Lisacek, F.
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-02-02
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5-6
- Pages
- 964-980
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- 1615-9861
- OpenAlex
- W2020103130
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 5.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Processing strategies and software solutions for data‐independent acquisition in mass spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pmic.201400323
- The paper
- Bilbao, A., Varesio, E., Luban, J., Strambio‐De‐Castillia, C., Hopfgartner, G., Müller, M., & Lisacek, F. (2015). Processing strategies and software solutions for data‐independent acquisition in mass spectrometry. PROTEOMICS. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.201400323
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.