Loading in 5 sec....

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass SpectrometryPowerPoint Presentation

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Download Presentation

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Loading in 2 Seconds...

- 244 Views
- Updated On :
- Presentation posted in: Sports / Games

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Nathan Edwards Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology University of Maryland, College Park. High Quality Peptide Identification: E -value < 10 -8.

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Statistical Significance for Peptide Identification by Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Nathan Edwards

Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology

University of Maryland, College Park

- Peptide fragmentation by CID is poorly understood
- MS/MS spectra represent incomplete information about amino-acid sequence
- I/L, K/Q, GG/N, …

- Correct identifications don’t come with a certificate!

- High-throughput workflows demand we analyze all spectra, all the time.
- Spectra may not contain enough information to be interpreted correctly
- …bad static on a cell phone

- Peptides may not match our assumptions
- …its all Greek to me

- “Don’t know”is an acceptable answer!

- Rank the best peptide identifications
- Is the top ranked peptide correct?

- Rank the best peptide identifications
- Is the top ranked peptide correct?

- Rank the best peptide identifications
- Is the top ranked peptide correct?

- Incorrect peptide has best score
- Correct peptide is missing?
- Potential for incorrect conclusion
- What score ensures no incorrect peptides?

- Correct peptide has weak score
- Insufficient fragmentation, poor score
- Potential for weakened conclusion
- What score ensures we find all correct peptides?

- Can’t prove particular identifications are right or wrong...
- ...need to know fragmentation in advance!

- A minimal standard for identification scores...
- ...better than guessing.
- p-value, E-value, statistical significance

Throwing darts

One at a time

Blindfolded

Uniform distribution?

Independent?

Identically distributed?

Pr [ Dart hits 20 ] = 0.05

Throwing darts

- One at a time
- Blindfolded
- Three darts
Pr [Hitting 20 3 times]

= 0.05 * 0.05 * 0.05

Pr [Hit 20 at least twice]

= 0.007125 + 0.000125

Throwing darts

- One at a time
- Blindfolded
- 100 darts
Pr [Hitting 20 3 times]

= 0.139575

Pr [Hit 20 at least twice]

= 0.9629188

- Dartboard represents the mass range of the spectrum
- Peaks of a spectrum are “slices”
- Width of slice corresponds to mass tolerance

- Darts represent
- random masses
- masses of fragments of a random peptide
- masses of peptides of a random protein
- masses of biomarkers from a random class

- How many darts do we get to throw?

- random masses

100

% Intensity

0

m/z

250

500

750

1000

What is the probability that we match at least 5 peaks?

270

330

870

550

755

580

- Pr [ Match ≥ s peaks ]
= Binomial( p , n )

≈ Poisson( p n ), for small p and large n

p is prob. of random mass / peak match,

n is number of darts (fragments in our answer)

Theoretical distribution

- Used by OMSSA
- Proposed, in various forms, by many.
- Probability of random mass / peak match
- IID (independent, identically distributed)
- Based on match tolerance

Theoretical distribution assumptions

- Each dart is independent
- Peaks are not “related”

- Each dart is identically distributed
- Chance of random mass / peak match is the same for all peaks

100 people

1000 people

100 Darts, # 20’s

100000 people

10000 people

100 people

1000 people

100 Darts, # 20’s

100000 people

10000 people

- Tournament size == number of trials
- Number of peptides tried
- Related to sequence database size

- Probability that a random match score is ≥ s
- 1 – Pr [ all match scores < s ]
- 1 – Pr [ match score < s ] Trials (*)
- Assumes IID!

- Expect value
- E = Trials * Pr [ match ≥ s ]
- Corresponds to Bonferroni bound on (*)

- Comparison with completely random model isn’t really fair
- Match scores for real spectra with real peptides obey rules
- Even incorrect peptides match with non-random structure!

- Want to generate random fragment masses (darts) that behave more like the real thing:
- Some fragments are more likely than others
- Some fragments depend on others

- Theoretical models can only incorporate this structure to a limited extent.

- Generate random peptides
- Real looking fragment masses
- No theoretical model!
- Must use empirical distribution
- Usually require they have the correct precursor mass

- Score function can model anything we like!

Fenyo & Beavis, Anal. Chem., 2003

Fenyo & Beavis, Anal. Chem., 2003

- Truly random peptides don’t look much like real peptides
- Just use peptides from the sequence database!
- Caveats:
- Correct peptide (non-random) may be included
- Peptides are not independent

- Reverse sequence avoids only the first problem

- Often, the empirical shape is consistent with a theoretical model

Geer et al., J. Proteome Research, 2004

Fenyo & Beavis, Anal. Chem., 2003

- Each spectrum is a chance to be right, wrong, or inconclusive.
- How many decisions are wrong?

- Given identification criteria:
- SEQUEST Xcorr, E-value, Score, etc., plus...
- ...threshold

- Use “decoy” sequences
- random, reverse, cross-species
- Identifications must be incorrect!

- # FP in real search = # hits in decoy search
- Need same size database, or rate conversion

- FP Rate: # decoy hits
# real hits

- FP Rate: 2 x # decoy hits .
(# real hits + # decoy hits)

- A form of statistical significance
- In “theory”, E-value and a FP rate are the same.

- Search engine independent
- Easy to implement

- Assumes a single threshold for all spectra
- Spectrum/Peptide Identification scores are not iid!...
- ...but E-values, in principle, are.

- From the Institute for Systems Biology
- Keller et al., Anal. Chem. 2002

- Re-analysis of SEQUEST results
- Spectra are trials
- Assumes that many of the spectra are not correctly identified

Keller et al., Anal. Chem. 2002

Distribution of spectral scores in the results

- Assumes a bimodal distribution of scores, with a particular shape
- Ignores database size
- …but it is included implicitly

- Like empirical distribution for peptide sampling, can be applied to any score function
- Can be applied to any search engines’ results

- Caveats
- Are spectra scores sampled from the same distribution?
- Is there enough correct identifications for second peak?
- Are spectra independent observations?
- Are distributions appropriately shaped?

- Huge improvement over raw SEQUEST results

Nesvizhskii et al., Anal. Chem. 2003

- A peptide sequence may occur in many different protein sequences
- Variants, paralogues, protein families

- Separation, digestion and ionization is not well understood
- Proteins in sequence database are extremely non-random, and very dependent

- Computational parameters
- Spectral processing
- Sequence database
- Search program
- Statistical analysis

- Number of peptides per protein
- Each peptide sequence counts once!
- Multiple forms of the same peptide count once!

- Single-peptide proteins must be explicitly justified by
- Peptide sequence
- N and C terminal amino-acids
- Precursor mass and charge
- Peptide Scores
- Multiple forms of the peptide counted once!

- Biological conclusions based on single-peptide proteins must show the spectrum

- More stringent requirements for PMF data analysis
- Similar to that for tandem mass spectra

- Management of protein redundancy
- Peptides identified from a different species?

- Spectra submission encouraged

- Could guessing be as effective as a search?
- More guesses improves the best guess
- Better guessers help us be more discriminating
- Peptide to proteins is not as simple as it seems
- Publication guidelines reflect sound statistical principles.