Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Probability-Based Evaluation of Peptide and Protein Identifications from Tandem Mass Spectrometry and SEQUEST Analysis: The Human Proteome

Qian, Wei-Jun, Liu, Tao, Monroe, Matthew E., Strittmatter, Eric F., Jacobs, Jon M., Kangas, Lars J., Petritis, Konstantinos, Camp, David G., Smith, Richard D.·2005·Journal of Proteome Research

Abstract

Large-scale protein identifications from highly complex protein mixtures have recently been achieved using multidimensional liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/LC-MS/MS) and subsequent database searching with algorithms such as SEQUEST. Here, we describe a probability-based evaluation of false positive rates associated with peptide identifications from three different human proteome samples. Peptides from human plasma, human mammary epithelial cell (HMEC) lysate, and human hepatocyte (Huh)-7.5 cell lysate were separated by strong cation exchange (SCX) chromatography coupled offline with reversed-phase capillary LC-MS/MS analyses. The MS/MS spectra were first analyzed by SEQUEST, searching independently against both normal and sequence-reversed human protein databases, and the false positive rates of peptide identifications for the three proteome samples were then analyzed and compared. The observed false positive rates of peptide identifications for human plasma were significantly higher than those for the human cell lines when identical filtering criteria were used, suggesting that the false positive rates are significantly dependent on sample characteristics, particularly the number of proteins found within the detectable dynamic range. Two new sets of filtering criteria are proposed for human plasma and human cell lines, respectively, to provide an overall confidence of >95% for peptide identifications. The new criteria were compared, using a normalized elution time (NET) criterion (Petritis et al. Anal. Chem. 2003, 75, 1039-1048), with previously published criteria (Washburn et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 2001, 19, 242-247). The results demonstrate that the present criteria provide significantly higher levels of confidence for peptide identifications from mammalian proteomes without greatly decreasing the number of identifications.

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 · 10.1021/pr0498638

Cites

24 of 24 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

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Qian, W.-J., Liu, T., Monroe, M. E., Strittmatter, E. F., Jacobs, J. M., Kangas, L. J., Petritis, K., Camp, D. G., & Smith, R. D.
Venue
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2004-12-13
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
53-62
ISSN
  • 1535-3893 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-3907
OpenAlex
W2089492568
Cited by
317
References
24
FWCI
13.50
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.