Assessment of false discovery rate control in tandem mass spectrometry analysis using entrapment
Bo WeniD, Jack FreestoneiD, Michael E. RiffleiD, Michael J. MacCossiD, William Stafford NobleiD, Uri KeichiD
Abstract
A pressing statistical challenge in the field of mass spectrometry proteomics is how to assess whether a given software tool provides accurate error control. Each software tool for searching such data uses its own internally implemented methodology for reporting and controlling the error. Many of these software tools are closed source, with incompletely documented methodology, and the strategies for validating the error are inconsistent across tools. In this work, we identify three different methods for validating false discovery rate (FDR) control in use in the field, one of which is invalid, one of which can only provide a lower bound rather than an upper bound, and one of which is valid but under-powered. The result is that the field has a very poor understanding of how well we are doing with respect to FDR control, particularly for the analysis of data-independent acquisition (DIA) data. We therefore propose a theoretical formulation of entrapment experiments that allows us to rigorously characterize the behavior of the various entrapment methods. We also propose a more powerful method for evaluating FDR control, and we employ that method, along with other existing techniques, to characterize a variety of popular search tools. We empirically validate our entrapment analysis in the fairly well-understood DDA setup before applying it in the DIA setup. We find that none of the DIA search tools consistently controls the FDR at the peptide level, and the tools struggle particularly with analysis of single cell datasets.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 65
- FWCI
- 14.86
- Field percentile
- top 1%
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Target-decoy false discovery rate estimation using Crema
Andy Lin, Donavan See, … William Stafford Noble·PROTEOMICSPeer-reviewed·Feb 21, 2024
- Ground Truth-Based Evaluation of False Discovery Rate and Statistical Power in DIA Proteomics
Jay M. Yarbro, Ya Huang, … Zuo-Fei Yuan·bioRxiv·Jun 2, 2026
- IonQuant enables accurate and sensitive label-free quantification with FDR-controlled match-between-runs
Fengchao Yu, Sarah E. Haynes, Alexey I. Nesvizhskii·Molecular & Cellular ProteomicsPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2021
- Re-investigating the correctness of decoy-based false discovery rate control in proteomics tandem mass spectrometry
Jack Freestone, William Stafford Noble, Uri Keich·Journal of Proteome ResearchPeer-reviewed·Apr 30, 2024
- Beyond target-decoy competition: stable validation of peptide and protein identifications in mass spectrometry-based discovery proteomics
Yohann Couté, Christophe Bruley, Thomas Bürger·Analytical ChemistryPeer-reviewed·Sep 24, 2020
- diagFDR: Verifiable False Discovery Rate Reporting in Proteomics via Scope, Calibration, and Stability Diagnostics
Marie Chion, Alexandre Godmer, … Quentin Giai Gianetto·bioRxiv·Apr 20, 2026