Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment.

IF 36.1 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Nature Methods Pub Date : 2025-07-01 Epub Date: 2025-06-16 DOI:10.1038/s41592-025-02719-x
Bo Wen, Jack Freestone, Michael Riffle, Michael J MacCoss, William S Noble, Uri Keich
{"title":"Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment.","authors":"Bo Wen, Jack Freestone, Michael Riffle, Michael J MacCoss, William S Noble, Uri Keich","doi":"10.1038/s41592-025-02719-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A critical challenge in mass spectrometry proteomics is accurately assessing error control, especially given that software tools employ distinct methods for reporting errors. Many tools are closed-source and poorly documented, leading to inconsistent validation strategies. Here we identify three prevalent methods for validating false discovery rate (FDR) control: one invalid, one providing only a lower bound, and one valid but under-powered. The result is that the proteomics community has limited insight into actual FDR control effectiveness, especially for data-independent acquisition (DIA) analyses. We propose a theoretical framework for entrapment experiments, allowing us to rigorously characterize different approaches. Moreover, we introduce a more powerful evaluation method and apply it alongside existing techniques to assess existing tools. We first validate our analysis in the better-understood data-dependent acquisition setup, and then, we analyze DIA data, where we find that no DIA search tool consistently controls the FDR, with particularly poor performance on single-cell datasets.</p>","PeriodicalId":18981,"journal":{"name":"Nature Methods","volume":" ","pages":"1454-1463"},"PeriodicalIF":36.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12240826/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-025-02719-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A critical challenge in mass spectrometry proteomics is accurately assessing error control, especially given that software tools employ distinct methods for reporting errors. Many tools are closed-source and poorly documented, leading to inconsistent validation strategies. Here we identify three prevalent methods for validating false discovery rate (FDR) control: one invalid, one providing only a lower bound, and one valid but under-powered. The result is that the proteomics community has limited insight into actual FDR control effectiveness, especially for data-independent acquisition (DIA) analyses. We propose a theoretical framework for entrapment experiments, allowing us to rigorously characterize different approaches. Moreover, we introduce a more powerful evaluation method and apply it alongside existing techniques to assess existing tools. We first validate our analysis in the better-understood data-dependent acquisition setup, and then, we analyze DIA data, where we find that no DIA search tool consistently controls the FDR, with particularly poor performance on single-cell datasets.

利用诱捕法对串联质谱分析中的错误发现率控制进行评估。
质谱蛋白质组学的一个关键挑战是准确评估错误控制,特别是考虑到软件工具采用不同的方法来报告错误。许多工具都是闭源的,文档记录也很差,导致验证策略不一致。在这里,我们确定了验证错误发现率(FDR)控制的三种流行方法:一种无效,一种仅提供下界,一种有效但功率不足。结果是,蛋白质组学社区对实际的FDR控制效果的了解有限,特别是对数据独立获取(DIA)分析。我们提出了一个陷阱实验的理论框架,使我们能够严格地描述不同的方法。此外,我们引入了一种更强大的评估方法,并将其与现有技术一起应用于评估现有工具。我们首先在更好理解的数据依赖采集设置中验证我们的分析,然后,我们分析DIA数据,我们发现没有DIA搜索工具始终控制FDR,在单细胞数据集上表现特别差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nature Methods
Nature Methods 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
58.70
自引率
1.70%
发文量
326
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Nature Methods is a monthly journal that focuses on publishing innovative methods and substantial enhancements to fundamental life sciences research techniques. Geared towards a diverse, interdisciplinary readership of researchers in academia and industry engaged in laboratory work, the journal offers new tools for research and emphasizes the immediate practical significance of the featured work. It publishes primary research papers and reviews recent technical and methodological advancements, with a particular interest in primary methods papers relevant to the biological and biomedical sciences. This includes methods rooted in chemistry with practical applications for studying biological problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信