Many proteomics laboratories have found spectral counting to be an ideal way to recognize biomarkers that differentiate cohorts of samples. This approach assumes that proteins that differ in quantity between samples will generate different numbers of identifiable tandem mass spectra. Increasingly, researchers are employing multiple search engines to maximize the identifications generated from data collections. This talk evaluates four strategies to combine information from multiple search engines in comparative proteomics. The “Count Sum” model pools the spectra across search engines. The “Vote Counting” model combines the judgments from each search engine by protein. Two other models employ parametric and non-parametric analyses of protein-specific p-values from different search engines. We evaluated the four strategies in two different data sets. The ABRF iPRG 2009 study generated five LC-MS/MS analyses of “red” E. coli and five analyses of “yellow” E. coli. NCI CPTAC Study 6 generated five concentrations of Sigma UPS1 spiked into a yeast background. All data were identified with X!Tandem, Sequest, MyriMatch, and TagRecon. For both sample types, “Vote Counting” appeared to manage the diverse identification sets most effectively, yielding heightened discrimination as more search engines were added. Articles from Journal of Biomolecular Techniques : JBT are provided here courtesy of The Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities.
展开▼
