Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 6;13(11):3211–3223. doi: 10.1074/mcp.O114.038877

Table II. Comparison between the DeMix and MaxQuant workflow, with four database searching methods, based on the combined HeLa triplicate dataset.

Search engine MaxQuant
DeMix
Andromeda Mascot MS-GF+ Percolator Morpheus-AS
Deconvolutiona - + - + - + - +
Peptide-spectrum matchesb 115135 131597 78063 80096 118715 193450 122208 200292
    PSM per MS/MS 0.714 0.816 0.484 0.497 0.736 1.199 0.758 1.242
Unique peptides 32646 38112 23133 23095 35468 45022 33712 41628
    PSM per peptide 3.53 3.45 3.37 3.47 3.35 4.30 3.63 4.81
    Confetti supportedc 86.4% 84.6% 89.3% 89.4% 85.4% 83.0% 86.3% 84.6%
Protein groups 4409 4642 3800 3801 4831 5443 4707 5167
    Strongly supportedd 3597 3985 2865 2868 3776 4446 3691 4222
    Mean coverage 24.4% 25.1% 22.9% 22.9% 24.7% 25.7% 24.6% 25.6%

a Deconvolution: secondary peptides in MaxQuant or spectra cloning in DeMix are allowed (+) or not (-).

b PSM lists were trimmed to E-value < 0.05 for Mascot, or to FDR < 0.01 for Andromeda, MS-GF+ Percolator and Morpheus-AS.

c Proportion of unique peptide sequences found in the Confetti database (34).

d Protein groups supported by two or more unique peptides are considered to be strongly supported; and mean coverage was calculated for these strongly supported proteins.