Cited by 203Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies

Statistical control of peptide and protein error rates in large-scale targeted data-independent acquisition analyses

Open access
Rosenberger, George, Bludau, Isabell, Schmitt, Uwe, Heusel, Moritz, Hunter, Christie L, Liu, Yansheng, MacCoss, Michael J, MacLean, Brendan X +8 more·2017·Nature Methods

Abstract

Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the main method for high-throughput identification and quantification of peptides and inferred proteins. Within this field, data-independent acquisition (DIA) combined with peptide-centric scoring, as exemplified by the technique SWATH-MS, has emerged as a scalable method to achieve deep and consistent proteome coverage across large-scale data sets. We demonstrate that statistical concepts developed for discovery proteomics based on spectrum-centric scoring can be adapted to large-scale DIA experiments that have been analyzed with peptide-centric scoring strategies, and we provide guidance on their application. We show that optimal tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity require careful considerations of the relationship between proteins in the samples and proteins represented in the spectral library. We propose the application of a global analyte constraint to prevent the accumulation of false positives across large-scale data sets. Furthermore, to increase the quality and reproducibility of published proteomic results, well-established confidence criteria should be reported for the detected peptide queries, peptides and inferred proteins.

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 · 10.1038/nmeth.4398

Cites

50 of 50 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • When FDR was controlled only at peptide query level and not protein level, and only sample-by-sample and not in the global context, the accumulation of new peak groups steadily increased, indicating likely accumulation of false positives.

    “The accumulation of new peak groups steadily increased across the data set, indicating a likely accumulation of false positives and, highlighting the importance of appropriate global FDR control55, 56.”
  • The result of this study, focused on assessing variation in data acquisition, is paralleled by concurrent improvements in robustness of data analysis tools, methods for error rate control, and sample preparation techniques.

    “The result of our study, focused on assessing variation in data acquisition, is paralleled by concurrent improvements in the robustness of data analysis tools39, methods for error rate control55, and sample preparation techniques43.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rosenberger, G., Bludau, I., Schmitt, U., Heusel, M., Hunter, C. L., Liu, Y., MacCoss, M. J., MacLean, B. X., Nesvizhskii, A. I., Pedrioli, P. G. A., Reiter, L., Röst, H. L., Tate, S., Ting, Y. S., Collins, B. C., & Aebersold, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Biognosys (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Sciex (Canada) (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Collins, Ben C
  • Aebersold, Ruedi
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2017-08-21
Volume
14
Issue
9
Pages
921-927
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2745376284
Cited by
203
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 4
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (P2EZP3, 31003A, 130530, 162268, 161435)
  • Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich
  • Institut Mérieux (PZ00P3_161435)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P41GM103533, R01GM094231)
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (233226)
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 › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Keywords
data-independent acquisition, false discovery rate, SWATH-MS, spectral library, large-scale proteomics, targeted proteomics
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Peptide Mapping, Proteins, Sensitivity and Specificity, Mass Spectrometry, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Sequence Analysis, Protein, High-Throughput Screening Assays

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