Cited by 4Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Pairwise Attention: Leveraging Mass Differences to Enhance De Novo Sequencing of Mass Spectra

Open access
Lapin, Joel, Nilsson, Alfred, Wilhelm, Mathias, Käll, Lukas·2025·Journal of Proteome Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

A fundamental challenge in mass spectrometry-based proteomics is determining which peptide generated a given MS2 spectrum. Peptide sequencing typically relies on matching spectra against a known sequence database, which in some applications is not available. Deep learning-based de novo sequencing can address this limitation by directly predicting peptide sequences from MS2 data. We have seen the application of the transformer architecture to de novo sequencing produce state-of-the-art results on the so-called nine-species benchmark. In this study, we propose an improved transformer encoder inspired by the heuristics used in the manual interpretation of spectra. We modify the attention mechanism with a learned bias based on pairwise mass differences, termed Pairwise Attention (PA). Adding PA improves average peptide precision at 100% coverage by 12.7% (5.9 percentage points) over our base transformer on the original nine-species benchmark. We have also achieved a 7.4% increase over the previously published model Casanovo. Our MS2 encoding strategy is largely orthogonal to other transformer-based models encoding MS2 spectra, enabling straightforward integration into existing deep-learning approaches. Our results show that integrating domain-specific knowledge into transformers boosts de novo sequencing performance.

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 · 10.1021/acs.jproteome.5c00063

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Lapin, J., Nilsson, A., Wilhelm, M., & Käll, L.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Science for Life Laboratory (SE)
Corresponding author
  • Wilhelm, Mathias
  • Käll, Lukas
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2025-06-02
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
3722-3730
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W4410966262
Cited by
4
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4
FWCI
1.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Proteome Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (KAW 2022.0032)
  • European Commission (101077037)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
de novo peptide sequencing, MS2 spectra, mass difference, Transformer encoder, spectral interpretation
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Algorithms, Peptides, Mass Spectrometry, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Databases, Protein, Proteomics, Tandem Mass Spectrometry

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