Comparison of Database Searching Programs for the Analysis of Single-Cell Proteomics Data

Single-cell proteomics is emerging as an important subfield in the proteomics and mass spectrometry communities, with potential to reshape our understanding of cell development, cell differentiation, disease diagnosis, and the development of new therapies. Compared with significant advancements in t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of proteome research 2023-04, Vol.22 (4), p.1298-1308
Hauptverfasser: Peng, Jiaxi, Chan, Calvin, Meng, Fei, Hu, Yechen, Chen, Lingfan, Lin, Ge, Zhang, Shen, Wheeler, Aaron R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Single-cell proteomics is emerging as an important subfield in the proteomics and mass spectrometry communities, with potential to reshape our understanding of cell development, cell differentiation, disease diagnosis, and the development of new therapies. Compared with significant advancements in the “hardware” that is used in single-cell proteomics, there has been little work comparing the effects of using different “software” packages to analyze single-cell proteomics datasets. To this end, seven popular proteomics programs were compared here, applying them to search three single-cell proteomics datasets generated by three different platforms. The results suggest that MSGF+, MSFragger, and Proteome Discoverer are generally more efficient in maximizing protein identifications, that MaxQuant is better suited for the identification of low-abundance proteins, that MSFragger is superior in elucidating peptide modifications, and that Mascot and X!Tandem are better for analyzing long peptides. Furthermore, an experiment with different loading amounts was carried out to investigate changes in identification results and to explore areas in which single-cell proteomics data analysis may be improved in the future. We propose that this comparative study may provide insight for experts and beginners alike operating in the emerging subfield of single-cell proteomics.
ISSN:1535-3893
1535-3907
DOI:10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00821