The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Use of Artificial Neural Networks for the Accurate Prediction of Peptide Liquid Chromatography Elution Times in Proteome Analyses
Abstract
The use of artificial neural networks (ANNs) is described for predicting the reversed-phase liquid chromatography retention times of peptides enzymatically digested from proteome-wide proteins. To enable the accurate comparison of the numerous LC/MS data sets, a genetic algorithm was developed to normalize the peptide retention data into a range (from 0 to 1), improving the peptide elution time reproducibility to approximately 1%. The network developed in this study was based on amino acid residue composition and consists of 20 input nodes, 2 hidden nodes, and 1 output node. A data set of approximately 7000 confidently identified peptides from the microorganism Deinococcus radiodurans was used for the training of the ANN. The ANN was then used to predict the elution times for another set of 5200 peptides tentatively identified by MS/MS from a different microorganism (Shewanella oneidensis). The model was found to predict the elution times of peptides with up to 54 amino acid residues (the longest peptide identified after tryptic digestion of S. oneidensis) with an average accuracy of approximately 3%. This predictive capability was then used to distinguish with high confidence isobar peptides otherwise indistinguishable by accurate mass measurements as well as to uncover peptide misidentifications. Thus, integration of ANN peptide elution time prediction in the proteomic research will increase both the number of protein identifications and their confidence.
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
Cited by
Using i RT, a normalized retention time for more targeted measurement of peptides
Escher, C., Reiter, L., MacLean, B., Ossola, R., Herzog, F., Chilton, J., MacCoss, M. J., & Rinner, O. (2012) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.201100463 · Cited by 600
Proteomics by FTICR mass spectrometry: Top down and bottom up
Bogdanov, B., & Smith, R. D. (2005) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.20015 · Cited by 447
Self-citationQian, W.-J., Liu, T., Monroe, M. E., Strittmatter, E. F., Jacobs, J. M., Kangas, L. J., Petritis, K., Camp, D. G., & Smith, R. D. (2005) · Journal of Proteome Research · doi:10.1021/pr0498638 · Cited by 317
Self-citationKrokhin, O. V., Craig, R., Spicer, V., Ens, W., Standing, K. G., Beavis, R. C., & Wilkins, J. A. (2004) · Molecular & Cellular Proteomics · doi:10.1074/mcp.m400031-mcp200 · Cited by 284
Diamond, D. L., Jacobs, J. M., Paeper, B., Proll, S. C., Gritsenko, M. A., Carithers, R. L., Larson, A. M., Yeh, M. M., Camp, D. G., Smith, R. D., et al. (2007) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21751 · Cited by 114
Self-citationCE–ESI‐MS for bottom‐up proteomics: Advances in separation, interfacing and applications
Heemskerk, A. A. M., Deelder, A. M., & Mayboroda, O. A. (2016) · Mass Spectrometry Reviews · doi:10.1002/mas.21432 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Petritis, K., Kangas, L. J., Ferguson, P. L., Anderson, G. A., Paša-Tolić, L., Lipton, M. S., Auberry, K. J., Strittmatter, E. F., Shen, Y., Zhao, R., & Smith, R. D.
- Venue
- Analytical Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2003-01-25
- Volume
- 75
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1039-1048
- ISSN
- 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6882
- OpenAlex
- W1979319235
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.