Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

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 access
Bilbao, Aivett, Varesio, Emmanuel, Luban, Jeremy, Strambio‐De‐Castillia, Caterina, Hopfgartner, Gérard, Müller, Markus, Lisacek, Frédérique·2015·PROTEOMICS

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pmic.201400323

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 190

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.