Analysis, statistical validation and dissemination of large-scale proteomics datasets generated by tandem MS

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 173-181

  Nesvizhskii, Alexey I ^a   Aebersold, Ruedi ^a  

^a INSTITUTE FOR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Biotechnology; Drug Discovery; Peptides; Pharmaceutical Science; Protein databases; Proteomics; Tandem mass spectrometry; Techniques Methods; Validation

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BIOINFORMATICS; DATA BASE; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; GENOME; LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN DEGRADATION; PROTEIN EXPRESSION; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; TANDEM MASS SPECTROMETRY; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; MASS SPECTROMETRY; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PROTEOMICS;

EID: 1042266254     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02978-7     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Aebersold R., Mann M. Mass spectrometry-based proteomics. Nature. 422:2003;198-207.
2. Zhu H., Snyder M. Protein chip technology. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7:2003;55-63.
3. Reid G.E., McLuckey S.A. Top down' protein characterization via tandem mass spectrometry. J. Mass Spectrom. 37:2002;663-675.
4. Link A.J., et al. Direct analysis of protein complexes using mass spectrometry. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:1999;676-682.
5. Gygi S.P., et al. Quantitative analysis of complex protein mixtures using isotope-coded affinity tags. Nat. Biotechnol. 17:1999;994-999.
6. Goshe M.B., Smith R.D. Stable isotope-coded proteomic mass spectrometry. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 14:2003;101-109.
7. Burlingame A.L. Toward deciphering the knowledge encrypted in large datasets. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2:2003;425.
8. Patterson S.D. Data analysis - the Achilles heel of proteomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 21:2003;221-222.
9. Boguski M.S., McIntosh M.W. Biomedical informatics for proteomics. Nature. 422:2003;233-237.
10. Eng J.K., et al. An approach to correlate tandem mass spectral data of peptides with amino acid sequences in a protein database. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 5:1994;976-989.
11. Perkins D.N., et al. Probability-based protein identification by searching sequence databases using mass spectrometry data. Electrophoresis. 20:1999;3551-3567.
12. Clauser K.R., et al. Role of accurate mass measurement (±10 ppm) in protein identification strategies employing MS or MS/MS and database searching. Anal. Chem. 71:1999;2871-2882.
13. Field H.I., et al. RADARS, a bioinformatics solution that automates proteome mass spectral analysis, optimizes protein identification, and archives data in a relational database. Proteomics. 2:2002;36-47.
14. Bafna V., Edwards N. SCOPE: a probabilistic model for scoring tandem mass spectra against a peptide database. Bioinformatics. 17 (Suppl.):2001;S13- S21.
15. Pevzner P.A., et al. Efficiency of database search for identification of mutated and modified proteins via mass spectrometry. Genome Res. 11:2001;290-299.
16. Zhang N., et al. ProbID: a probabilistic algorithm to identify peptides through sequence database searching using tandem mass spectral data. Proteomics. 2:2002;1406-1412.
17. Havilio M., et al. Intensity-based statistical scorer for tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;435-444.
18. Hernandez P., et al. Popitam: towards new heuristic strategies to improve protein identification from tandem mass spectrometry data. Proteomics. 3:2003;870-878.
19. Colinge J., et al. OLAV: towards high-throughput tandem mass spectrometry data identification. Proteomics. 3:2003;1454-1463.
20. Sadygov, R.G. and Yates, J.R., III (2003) A hypergeometric probability model for protein identification and validation using tandem mass spectral data and protein sequence databases. Anal. Chem. 75, 3792-3798.
21. Craig R., Beavis R.C. A method for reducing the time required to match protein sequences with tandem mass spectra. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17:2003;2310-2316.
22. Kuster B., et al. Mass spectrometry allows direct identification of proteins in large genomes. Proteomics. 1:2001;641-650.
23. Choudhary J.S., et al. Interrogating the human genome using uninterpreted mass spectrometry data. Proteomics. 1:2001;651-667.
24. Lee C., et al. ASAP: the alternative splicing annotation project. Nucleic Acids Res. 31:2003;101-105.
25. Taylor J.A., Johnson R.C. Implementation and uses of automated de novo peptide sequencing by tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 73:2001;2594-2604.
26. Dancik V., et al. De novo peptide sequencing via tandem mass spectrometry. J. Comput. Biol. 6:1999;327-342.
27. Fernandez-de-Cossio J., et al. Automated interpretation of low-energy collision-induced dissociation spectra by SeqMS, a software aid for de novo sequencing by tandem mass spectrometry. Electrophoresis. 21:2000;1694-1699.
28. Chen T., et al. A dynamic programming approach to de novo sequencing via tandem mass spectrometry. J. Comput. Biol. 8:2001;325-337.
29. Lubeck O., et al. New computational approaches for de novo peptide sequencing from MS/MS experiments. Proc. IEEE. 90:2002;1868-1874.
30. Lu B.W., Chen T. A suboptimal algorithm for de novo peptide sequencing via tandem mass spectrometry. J. Comput. Biol. 10:2003;1-12.
31. Ma B., et al. PEAKS: powerful software for peptide de novo sequencing by tandem mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17:2003;2337-2342.
32. Bafna V., Edwards N. On de novo interpretation of peptide sequencing via tandem mass spectrometry. In RECOMB. 2003:2003;9-18.
33. Cannon W.R., Jarmal K.D. Improved peptide sequencing using isotope information inherent in tandem mass spectra. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 17:2003;1793-1801.
34. Shevchenko A., et al. Charting the proteomes of organisms with unsequenced genomes by MALDI-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry and BLAST homology searching. Anal. Chem. 73:2001;1917-1926.
35. Mann M., Wilm M. Error-tolerant identification of peptides in sequence databases by peptide sequence tags. Anal. Chem. 66:1994;4390-4399.
36. Sunyaev S., et al. MultiTag: multiple error-tolerant sequence tag search for the sequence-similarity identification of proteins by mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;1307-1315.
37. Tabb D.L., et al. GutenTag: high-throughput sequence tagging via an empirically derived fragmentation model. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;6415-6421.
38. Liebler D.C., et al. Peptide sequence motif analysis of tandem MS data with the SALSA algorithm. Anal. Chem. 74:2002;203-210.
39. Keller A., et al. Empirical statistical model to estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications made by MS/MS and database search. Anal. Chem. 74:2002;5383-5392.
40. Nesvizhskii A.I., et al. A statistical model for identifying proteins by tandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;4646-4658.
41. Von Haller P.D., et al. The application of new software tools to quantitative protein profiling via ICAT and tandem mass spectrometry: II. Evaluation of tandem mass spectrometry methodologies for large-scale protein analysis and the application of statistical tools for data analysis and interpretation. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2:2003;428-442.
42. Keller A., et al. Experimental protein mixture for validating tandem mass spectral analysis. OMICS. 6:2002;207-212.
43. Gentzel M., et al. Preprocessing of tandem mass spectrometric data to support automatic protein identification. Proteomics. 3:2003;1597-1610.
44. Beer, I. et al. (2003) Pep-Miner: high throughput proteomics made easy. In Proc. 50th ASMS Conf. Mass Spectrom. Allied Top., Montreal, Canada.
45. Tabb D.L., et al. Similarity among tandem mass spectra from proteomic experiments: detection, significance, and utility. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;2470-2477.
46. Moore R.E., et al. Method for screening peptide fragment ion mass spectra prior to database searching. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 11:2000;422-426.
47. Kolker E., et al. Initial proteome analysis of model microorganism Haemophilus influenzae Rd strain KW20. J. Bacteriol. 185:2003;4593-4602.
48. Sadygov R.G., et al. Code developments to improve the efficiency of automated MS/MS spectra interpretation. J. Proteome Res. 1:2002;211-215.
49. Perez, R.E. et al. (2002) Peptide precursor charge state determination directly from ion trap MS/MS spectra. In Proc. 50th ASMS Conf. Mass Spectrom. Allied Top., Orlando, FL, USA.
50. Colinge J., et al. Improved peptide charge state assignment. Proteomics. 3:2003;1434-1440.
51. Tabb D.L., et al. Statistical characterization of ion trap tandem mass spectra from doubly charged tryptic peptides. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;1155-1163.
52. Kapp E.A., et al. Mining a tandem mass spectrometry database to determine the trends and global factors influencing peptide fragmentation. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;6251-6254.
53. Han D.K., et al. Quantitative profiling of differentiation-induced microsomal proteins using isotope-coded affinity tags and mass spectrometry. Nat. Biotechnol. 19:2001;946-951.
54. Tabb D.L., et al. DTASelect and Contrast: tools for assembling and comparing protein identifications from shotgun proteomics. J. Proteome Res. 1:2002;21-26.
55. Eddes J.S., et al. CHOMPER: a bioinformatic tool for rapid validation of tandem mass spectrometry search results associated with high-throughput proteomic strategies. Proteomics. 2:2002;1097-1103.
56. Peng J., et al. Evaluation of multidimensional chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/LC-MS/MS) for large scale protein analysis: the yeast proteome. J. Proteome Res. 2:2003;43-50.
57. Ewing B., Green P. Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res. 8:1998;186-194.
58. MacCoss M.J., et al. Probability-based validation of protein identifications using a modified SEQUEST algorithm. Anal. Chem. 74:2002;5593-5599.
59. Anderson D.C., et al. A new algorithm for the evaluation of shotgun peptide sequencing in proteomics: support vector machine classification of peptide MS/MS spectra and SEQUEST scores. J. Proteome Res. 2:2003;137-146.
60. Fenyo D., Beavis R.C. A method for assessing the statistical significance of mass spectrometry-based protein identifications using general scoring schemes. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;768-774.
61. Kislinger T., et al. PRISM, a generic large scale proteomic investigation strategy for mammals. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 2:2003;96-106.
62. Karlin S., Altschul S.F. Methods for assessing the statistical significance of molecular sequence features by using general scoring schemes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 87:1990;2264-2268.
63. Petritis K., et al. Use of artificial neural networks for the accurate prediction of peptide liquid chromatography elution times in proteome analyses. Anal. Chem. 75:2003;1039-1048.
64. Cargile, B.J. et al. Gel based isoelectric focusing of peptides and the utility of isoelectric point in protein identification, J. Proteome Res. (in press).
65. Zhang H., et al. Identification and quantification of N-linked glycoproteins using hydrazide chemistry, stable isotope labeling and mass spectrometry. Nat. Biotechnol. 21:2003;660-666.
66. Rappsilber J., Mann M. What does it mean to identify a protein in proteomics? Trends Biochem. Sci. 27:2002;74-78.
67. Myers E.W., et al. A whole-genome assembly of Drosophila. Science. 287:2000;2196-2204.
68. Moore R.E., et al. Qscore: an algorithm for evaluating SEQUEST database search results. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 13:2002;378-386.
69. Orchard S., et al. Further advances in the development of a data interchange standard for proteomics data. Proteomics. 3:2003;2065-2066.