TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparative Evaluation of Proteome Discoverer and FragPipe for the TMT-Based Proteome Quantification
AU - He, Tianen
AU - Liu, Youqi
AU - Zhou, Yan
AU - Li, Lu
AU - Wang, He
AU - Chen, Shanjun
AU - Gao, Jinlong
AU - Jiang, Wenhao
AU - Yu, Yi
AU - Ge, Weigang
AU - Chang, Hui Yin
AU - Fan, Ziquan
AU - Nesvizhskii, Alexey I.
AU - Guo, Tiannan
AU - Sun, Yaoting
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/12/2
Y1 - 2022/12/2
N2 - Isobaric labeling-based proteomics is widely applied in deep proteome quantification. Among the platforms for isobaric labeled proteomic data analysis, the commercial software Proteome Discoverer (PD) is widely used, incorporating the search engine CHIMERYS, while FragPipe (FP) is relatively new, free for noncommercial purposes, and integrates the engine MSFragger. Here, we compared PD and FP over three public proteomic data sets labeled using 6plex, 10plex, and 16plex tandem mass tags. Our results showed the protein abundances generated by the two software are highly correlated. PD quantified more proteins (10.02%, 15.44%, 8.19%) than FP with comparable NA ratios (0.00% vs. 0.00%, 0.85% vs. 0.38%, and 11.74% vs. 10.52%) in the three data sets. Using the 16plex data set, PD and FP outputs showed high consistency in quantifying technical replicates, batch effects, and functional enrichment in differentially expressed proteins. However, FP saved 93.93%, 96.65%, and 96.41% of processing time compared to PD for analyzing the three data sets, respectively. In conclusion, while PD is a well-maintained commercial software integrating various additional functions and can quantify more proteins, FP is freely available and achieves similar output with a shorter computational time. Our results will guide users in choosing the most suitable quantification software for their needs.
AB - Isobaric labeling-based proteomics is widely applied in deep proteome quantification. Among the platforms for isobaric labeled proteomic data analysis, the commercial software Proteome Discoverer (PD) is widely used, incorporating the search engine CHIMERYS, while FragPipe (FP) is relatively new, free for noncommercial purposes, and integrates the engine MSFragger. Here, we compared PD and FP over three public proteomic data sets labeled using 6plex, 10plex, and 16plex tandem mass tags. Our results showed the protein abundances generated by the two software are highly correlated. PD quantified more proteins (10.02%, 15.44%, 8.19%) than FP with comparable NA ratios (0.00% vs. 0.00%, 0.85% vs. 0.38%, and 11.74% vs. 10.52%) in the three data sets. Using the 16plex data set, PD and FP outputs showed high consistency in quantifying technical replicates, batch effects, and functional enrichment in differentially expressed proteins. However, FP saved 93.93%, 96.65%, and 96.41% of processing time compared to PD for analyzing the three data sets, respectively. In conclusion, while PD is a well-maintained commercial software integrating various additional functions and can quantify more proteins, FP is freely available and achieves similar output with a shorter computational time. Our results will guide users in choosing the most suitable quantification software for their needs.
KW - FragPipe
KW - Proteome Discoverer
KW - labeled quantitative proteomics
KW - mass spectrometry
KW - tandem mass tag
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85141592497&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00390
DO - 10.1021/acs.jproteome.2c00390
M3 - 期刊論文
C2 - 36315902
AN - SCOPUS:85141592497
SN - 1535-3893
VL - 21
SP - 3007
EP - 3015
JO - Journal of Proteome Research
JF - Journal of Proteome Research
IS - 12
ER -