注册 | 登录 | FAQ      [?] 
CiteULike is a free online bibliography manager. Register and you can start organising your references online.
Recent | Unread | Search | Authors | Tags | Export

Comparative Evaluation of Tandem MS Search Algorithms Using a Target-Decoy Search Strategy

by: Brian M Balgley, Tom Laudeman, Li Yang, Tao Song, Cheng S Lee
Mol Cell Proteomics, Vol. 6, No. 9. (1 September 2007), pp. 1599-1608.


View FullText article


X Reviews [Write a review of this article]

There are no reviews of this article

X Find related articles from these CiteULike users

X Find related articles with these CiteULike tags

X 摘要

Peptide identification of tandem mass spectra by a variety of available search algorithms forms the foundation for much of modern day mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Despite the critical importance of proper evaluation and interpretation of the results generated by these algorithms there is still little consistency in their application or understanding of their similarities and differences. A survey was conducted of four tandem mass spectrometry peptide identification search algorithms, including Mascot, Open Mass Spectrometry Search Algorithm, Sequest, and X! Tandem. The same input data, search parameters, and sequence library were used for the searches. Comparisons were based on commonly used scoring methodologies for each algorithm and on the results of a target-decoy approach to sequence library searching. The results indicated that there is little difference in the output of the algorithms so long as consistent scoring procedures are applied. The results showed that some commonly used scoring procedures may lead to excessive false discovery rates. Finally an alternative method for the determination of an optimal cutoff threshold is proposed. 10.1074/mcp.M600469-MCP200


X BibTeX record

X RIS record



RIS BibTeX
CiteULike organises scholarly (or academic) papers or literature and provides bibliographic (which means it makes bibliographies) for universities and higher education establishments. It helps undergraduates and postgraduates. People studying for PhDs or in postdoctoral (postdoc) positions. The service is similar in scope to EndNote or RefWorks or any other reference manager like BibTeX, but it is a social bookmarking service for scientists and humanities researchers.