Abstract
The goal of proteomics is to identify and quantify peptides and proteins within a biological sample. Almost all algorithms for the identification of peptides in LC-MS/MS data employ two steps: peptide/spectrum matching and peptide-identity-propagation (PIP), also known as match-between-runs. PIP was originally envisioned as a backup method to overcome measurement stochasticity. However, current PIP implementations can routinely account for up to 40% of all results, with that proportion rising as high as 75% in single-cell proteomics. Unlike peptide identities derived through peptide/spectrum matches, for which error estimation has been strictly enforced for decades, peptide identities derived through PIP have not historically been subject to statistical evaluation. As an indispensable component of label free quantification, PIP needs a simple and statistically rigorous method for estimating its error rates. Although several tools claim to control the false discovery rate (FDR) of PIP, these claims cannot be validated as there is currently no accepted method to assess the accuracy of the stated FDR. We present a method for FDR control of PIP, called PIP-ECHO, and devise a rigorous protocol for evaluating FDR control of any PIP method. Using three different benchmark datasets, we evaluate PIP-ECHO alongside the PIP procedures implemented by FlashLFQ, IonQuant, and MaxQuant. These analyses show that only PIP-ECHO can accurately control the FDR of PIP at 1% across all datasets, including single cell. When analyzing spike-in datasets where different known amounts of yeast or E. coli peptides are added to a constant background of human peptides, PIP-ECHO increases both the accuracy and sensitivity of differential expression analysis, yielding 53% more differentially abundant proteins than MaxQuant and 146% more than IonQuant.
Full Text Availability
The license terms selected by the author(s) for this preprint version do not permit archiving in PMC. The full text is available from the preprint server.
