↓ Skip to main content

False discovery rates in spectral identification

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
False discovery rates in spectral identification
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2105-13-s16-s2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kyowon Jeong, Sangtae Kim, Nuno Bandeira

Abstract

Automated database search engines are one of the fundamental engines of high-throughput proteomics enabling daily identifications of hundreds of thousands of peptides and proteins from tandem mass (MS/MS) spectrometry data. Nevertheless, this automation also makes it humanly impossible to manually validate the vast lists of resulting identifications from such high-throughput searches. This challenge is usually addressed by using a Target-Decoy Approach (TDA) to impose an empirical False Discovery Rate (FDR) at a pre-determined threshold x% with the expectation that at most x% of the returned identifications would be false positives. But despite the fundamental importance of FDR estimates in ensuring the utility of large lists of identifications, there is surprisingly little consensus on exactly how TDA should be applied to minimize the chances of biased FDR estimates. In fact, since less rigorous TDA/FDR estimates tend to result in more identifications (at higher 'true' FDR), there is often little incentive to enforce strict TDA/FDR procedures in studies where the major metric of success is the size of the list of identifications and there are no follow up studies imposing hard cost constraints on the number of reported false positives. Here we address the problem of the accuracy of TDA estimates of empirical FDR. Using MS/MS spectra from samples where we were able to define a factual FDR estimator of 'true' FDR we evaluate several popular variants of the TDA procedure in a variety of database search contexts. We show that the fraction of false identifications can sometimes be over 10× higher than reported and may be unavoidably high for certain types of searches. In addition, we further report that the two-pass search strategy seems the most promising database search strategy. While unavoidably constrained by the particulars of any specific evaluation dataset, our observations support a series of recommendations towards maximizing the number of resulting identifications while controlling database searches with robust and reproducible TDA estimation of empirical FDR.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 185 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 34%
Researcher 33 17%
Student > Master 31 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 4%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 26 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 53 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 53 27%
Computer Science 17 9%
Chemistry 13 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 30 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 December 2020.
All research outputs
#4,166,731
of 22,768,097 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#1,610
of 7,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,503
of 183,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#20
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,768,097 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,273 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 183,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.