Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment

A critical challenge in mass spectrometry proteomics is accurately assessing error control, especially given that software tools employ distinct methods for reporting errors. Many tools are closed-source and poorly documented, leading to inconsistent validation strategies. Here we identify three prevalent methods for validating false discovery rate (FDR) control: one invalid, one providing only a lower bound, and one valid but under-powered. The result is that the proteomics community has limited insight into actual FDR control effectiveness, especially for data-independent acquisition (DIA) analyses. We propose a theoretical framework for entrapment experiments, allowing us to rigorously characterize different approaches. Moreover, we introduce a more powerful evaluation method and apply it alongside existing techniques to assess existing tools. We first validate our analysis in the better-understood data-dependent acquisition setup, and then, we analyze DIA data, where we find that no DIA search tool consistently controls the FDR, with particularly poor performance on single-cell datasets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Nature Methods
Published
2025-06-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-025-02719-x
Citations
29
Primary Topic
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
19.66

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment

Bo Wen, Michael J. MacCoss, William Stafford Noble, Michael Riffle et al.
29 citations
Nature Methods
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
19.66
article

Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment

Bo Wen, Michael J. MacCoss, William Stafford Noble, Michael Riffle, Uri Keich, Jack Freestone
article en
29 citations

Abstract

A critical challenge in mass spectrometry proteomics is accurately assessing error control, especially given that software tools employ distinct methods for reporting errors. Many tools are closed-source and poorly documented, leading to inconsistent validation strategies. Here we identify three prevalent methods for validating false discovery rate (FDR) control: one invalid, one providing only a lower bound, and one valid but under-powered. The result is that the proteomics community has limited insight into actual FDR control effectiveness, especially for data-independent acquisition (DIA) analyses. We propose a theoretical framework for entrapment experiments, allowing us to rigorously characterize different approaches. Moreover, we introduce a more powerful evaluation method and apply it alongside existing techniques to assess existing tools. We first validate our analysis in the better-understood data-dependent acquisition setup, and then, we analyze DIA data, where we find that no DIA search tool consistently controls the FDR, with particularly poor performance on single-cell datasets.

Nature MethodsVol. 22(7)
The University of Sydney (AU), University of Washington (US)
National Science Foundation, University of Washington, National Institutes of Health, Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity, Army Research Office
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
19.66
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment — Bo Wen, Michael J. MacCoss, et al. · Nature Methods (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS