蛋白质组
等压标记
蛋白质组学
串联质量标签
软件
计算机科学
计算生物学
等压法
吉祥物
串联质谱法
一致性(知识库)
定量蛋白质组学
色谱法
数据挖掘
质谱法
化学
生物信息学
生物
生物化学
程序设计语言
人工智能
蛋白质质谱法
物理
法学
基因
热力学
政治学
作者
Tianen He,Youqi Liu,Yan Zhou,Lu Li,He Wang,Shanjun Chen,Jinlong Gao,Wenhao Jiang,Yi Yu,Weigang Ge,Hui-Yin Chang,Ziquan Fan,Alexey I. Nesvizhskii,Tiannan Guo,Yaoting Sun
标识
DOI:10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00390
摘要
Isobaric labeling-based proteomics is widely applied in deep proteome quantification. Among the platforms for isobaric labeled proteomic data analysis, the commercial software Proteome Discoverer (PD) is widely used, incorporating the search engine CHIMERYS, while FragPipe (FP) is relatively new, free for noncommercial purposes, and integrates the engine MSFragger. Here, we compared PD and FP over three public proteomic data sets labeled using 6plex, 10plex, and 16plex tandem mass tags. Our results showed the protein abundances generated by the two software are highly correlated. PD quantified more proteins (10.02%, 15.44%, 8.19%) than FP with comparable NA ratios (0.00% vs. 0.00%, 0.85% vs. 0.38%, and 11.74% vs. 10.52%) in the three data sets. Using the 16plex data set, PD and FP outputs showed high consistency in quantifying technical replicates, batch effects, and functional enrichment in differentially expressed proteins. However, FP saved 93.93%, 96.65%, and 96.41% of processing time compared to PD for analyzing the three data sets, respectively. In conclusion, while PD is a well-maintained commercial software integrating various additional functions and can quantify more proteins, FP is freely available and achieves similar output with a shorter computational time. Our results will guide users in choosing the most suitable quantification software for their needs.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI