False discovery rates in spectral identification

Automated database search engines are one of the fundamental engines of high-throughput proteomics enabling daily identifications of hundreds of thousands of peptides and proteins from tandem mass (MS/MS) spectrometry data. Nevertheless, this automation also makes it humanly impossible to manually validate the vast lists of resulting identifications from such high-throughput searches. This challenge is usually addressed by using a Target-Decoy Approach (TDA) to impose an empirical False Discovery Rate (FDR) at a pre-determined threshold x% with the expectation that at most x% of the returned identifications would be false positives. But despite the fundamental importance of FDR estimates in ensuring the utility of large lists of identifications, there is surprisingly little consensus on exactly how TDA should be applied to minimize the chances of biased FDR estimates. In fact, since less rigorous TDA/FDR estimates tend to result in more identifications (at higher 'true' FDR), there is often little incentive to enforce strict TDA/FDR procedures in studies where the major metric of success is the size of the list of identifications and there are no follow up studies imposing hard cost constraints on the number of reported false positives.Here we address the problem of the accuracy of TDA estimates of empirical FDR. Using MS/MS spectra from samples where we were able to define a factual FDR estimator of 'true' FDR we evaluate several popular variants of the TDA procedure in a variety of database search contexts. We show that the fraction of false identifications can sometimes be over 10× higher than reported and may be unavoidably high for certain types of searches. In addition, we further report that the two-pass search strategy seems the most promising database search strategy.While unavoidably constrained by the particulars of any specific evaluation dataset, our observations support a series of recommendations towards maximizing the number of resulting identifications while controlling database searches with robust and reproducible TDA estimation of empirical FDR.

[1]  Ruedi Aebersold,et al.  The standard protein mix database: a diverse data set to assist in the production of improved Peptide and protein identification software tools. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[2]  D. N. Perkins,et al.  Probability‐based protein identification by searching sequence databases using mass spectrometry data , 1999, Electrophoresis.

[3]  R. Beavis,et al.  A method for reducing the time required to match protein sequences with tandem mass spectra. , 2003, Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM.

[4]  Hyungwon Choi,et al.  False discovery rates and related statistical concepts in mass spectrometry-based proteomics. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[5]  R. Fisher 019: On the Interpretation of x2 from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P. , 1922 .

[6]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  Assigning significance to peptides identified by tandem mass spectrometry using decoy databases. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[7]  R. Fisher On the Interpretation of χ2 from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P , 2010 .

[8]  Marshall W. Bern,et al.  Automatic Quality Assessment of Peptide Tandem Mass Spectra , 2004, ISMB/ECCB.

[9]  Steven P Gygi,et al.  Target-decoy search strategy for increased confidence in large-scale protein identifications by mass spectrometry , 2007, Nature Methods.

[10]  Birgit Schilling,et al.  Interlaboratory Study Characterizing a Yeast Performance Standard for Benchmarking LC-MS Platform Performance* , 2009, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[11]  Ruedi Aebersold,et al.  Artificial decoy spectral libraries for false discovery rate estimation in spectral library searching in proteomics. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[12]  P. Pevzner,et al.  Automated de novo protein sequencing of monoclonal antibodies , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  David Goldberg,et al.  Reanalysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Mass Spectra. , 2009, Journal of proteome research.

[14]  Stephen R Master,et al.  Unbiased statistical analysis for multi-stage proteomic search strategies. , 2010, Journal of proteome research.

[15]  A. Nesvizhskii A survey of computational methods and error rate estimation procedures for peptide and protein identification in shotgun proteomics. , 2010, Journal of proteomics.

[16]  Alexey I Nesvizhskii,et al.  Empirical statistical model to estimate the accuracy of peptide identifications made by MS/MS and database search. , 2002, Analytical chemistry.

[17]  P. Pevzner,et al.  The Generating Function of CID, ETD, and CID/ETD Pairs of Tandem Mass Spectra: Applications to Database Search* , 2010, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[18]  P. Pevzner,et al.  InsPecT: identification of posttranslationally modified peptides from tandem mass spectra. , 2005, Analytical chemistry.

[19]  Eunok Paek,et al.  Quality assessment of tandem mass spectra based on cumulative intensity normalization. , 2006, Journal of proteome research.

[20]  M. Mann,et al.  Precision proteomics: The case for high resolution and high mass accuracy , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Robertson Craig,et al.  TANDEM: matching proteins with tandem mass spectra. , 2004, Bioinformatics.

[22]  S. Bryant,et al.  Open mass spectrometry search algorithm. , 2004, Journal of proteome research.

[23]  Joshua E. Elias,et al.  Target-Decoy Search Strategy for Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomics , 2010, Proteome Bioinformatics.

[24]  William Stafford Noble,et al.  On using samples of known protein content to assess the statistical calibration of scores assigned to peptide-spectrum matches in shotgun proteomics. , 2011, Journal of proteome research.

[25]  P. Pevzner,et al.  Spectral probabilities and generating functions of tandem mass spectra: a strike against decoy databases. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[26]  J. Yates,et al.  An approach to correlate tandem mass spectral data of peptides with amino acid sequences in a protein database , 1994, Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry.

[27]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  Clustering millions of tandem mass spectra. , 2008, Journal of proteome research.

[28]  John D. Storey A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .

[29]  Yong J. Kil,et al.  Comment on "Unbiased statistical analysis for multi-stage proteomic search strategies". , 2011, Journal of proteome research.