Kandasamy Kumaran, Pandey Akhilesh, Molina Henrik
McKusick-Nathans Institute for Genetic Medicine and Department of Biological Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Anal Chem. 2009 Sep 1;81(17):7170-80. doi: 10.1021/ac9006107.
Electron transfer dissociation (ETD) is increasingly becoming popular for high-throughput experiments especially in the identification of the labile post-translational modifications. Most search algorithms that are currently in use for querying MS/MS data against protein databases have been optimized on the basis of matching fragment ions derived from collision induced dissociation of peptides, which are dominated by b and y ions. However, electron transfer dissociation of peptides generates completely different types of fragments: c and z ions. The goal of our study was to test the ability of different search algorithms to handle data from this fragmentation method. We compared four MS/MS search algorithms (OMSSA, Mascot, Spectrum Mill, and X!Tandem) using approximately 170,000 spectra generated from a standard protein mix, as well as from complex proteomic samples which included a large number of phosphopeptides. Our analysis revealed (1) greater differences between algorithms than has been previously reported for CID data, (2) a significant charge state bias resulting in >60-fold difference in the numbers of matched doubly charged peptides, and (3) identification of 70% more peptides by the best performing algorithm than the algorithm identifying the least number of peptides. Our results indicate that the search engines for analyzing ETD derived MS/MS spectra are still in their early days and that multiple search engines could be used to reduce individual biases of algorithms.
电子转移解离(ETD)在高通量实验中越来越受欢迎,尤其是在鉴定不稳定的翻译后修饰方面。目前用于针对蛋白质数据库查询MS/MS数据的大多数搜索算法都是基于匹配源自肽段碰撞诱导解离的碎片离子进行优化的,这些碎片离子主要是b离子和y离子。然而,肽段的电子转移解离会产生完全不同类型的碎片:c离子和z离子。我们研究的目的是测试不同搜索算法处理这种碎片化方法数据的能力。我们使用从标准蛋白质混合物以及包含大量磷酸肽的复杂蛋白质组样品生成的约170,000个谱图,比较了四种MS/MS搜索算法(OMSSA、Mascot、Spectrum Mill和X!Tandem)。我们的分析表明:(1)算法之间的差异比之前报道的CID数据的差异更大;(2)存在显著的电荷态偏差,导致匹配的双电荷肽数量相差60倍以上;(3)性能最佳的算法比识别肽段数量最少的算法多识别70%的肽段。我们的结果表明,用于分析ETD衍生的MS/MS谱图的搜索引擎仍处于早期阶段,可以使用多个搜索引擎来减少算法的个体偏差。