Mujahid Sana, Bergholz Teresa M, Oliver Haley F, Boor Kathryn J, Wiedmann Martin
Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Int J Mol Sci. 2013 May 3;14(5):9685. doi: 10.3390/ijms14059685.
The original version of the paper in Section 3.8 reports that "The peptide mass tolerance and fragment mass tolerance values were 10 ppm and 30 mDa, respectively" [1] (p. 387). To help others who may want to use the same methods in the future, the authors would like to correct the wording to: "The peptide mass tolerance and fragment mass tolerance values were 30 ppm and 0.15 Da, respectively. In order to decrease the probability of false peptide identification, only peptides with significance scores above the identity threshold (at the 95% confidence interval), defined by Mascot probability analysis (www.matrixscience.com/help/scoring_help.html#PBM), were considered to be confidently identified and used for protein identification. Furthermore, only proteins identified in all four iTRAQ samples through at least two peptides with a p-value of <0.05 (expectation value) were further analyzed". The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused to the readers of this journal.
第3.8节中论文的原始版本报告称:“肽质量容差和碎片质量容差值分别为10 ppm和30 mDa”[1](第387页)。为了帮助未来可能想使用相同方法的其他人,作者希望将措辞更正为:“肽质量容差和碎片质量容差值分别为30 ppm和0.15 Da。为了降低错误肽鉴定的概率,只有显著性得分高于由Mascot概率分析(www.matrixscience.com/help/scoring_help.html#PBM)定义的同一性阈值(在95%置信区间)的肽才被认为是可靠鉴定的,并用于蛋白质鉴定。此外,只有在所有四个iTRAQ样品中通过至少两个p值<0.05(期望值)的肽鉴定出的蛋白质才会被进一步分析”。作者对由此可能给本期刊读者带来的任何不便表示歉意。