Molecular & Cellular ProteomicsBioinformaticsPeer-reviewed journal article
Benchmarking Software for DDA-PASEF Immunopeptidomics
Yannic CheniD, Annica PreikschatiD, Annette Arnold, Riccardo PecoriiD, David Gomez‐ZepedaiD, Stefan TenzeriD
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS) is the method of choice for high-throughput identification of immunopeptides, which are generated by intracellular proteases, unlike proteomics peptides that are typically derived from trypsin-digested proteins. Therefore, the searching space for immunopeptides is not limited by proteolytic specificity, requiring more sophisticated software algorithms to handle the increased complexity. Despite the widespread use of MS in immunopeptidomics, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of data processing software, making it challenging to identify the optimal solution. In this study, we provide a comprehensive benchmarking of the most widespread/used data-dependent acquisition (DDA)-based software platforms for immunopeptidomics: MaxQuant, FragPipe, PEAKS and MHCquant. The evaluation was conducted using data obtained from the JY cell line using the Thunder-DDA-PASEF method. We assessed each softwares ability to identify immunopeptides and compared their identification confidence. Additionally, we examined potential biases in the results and tested the impact of database size on immunopeptide identification efficiency. Our findings demonstrate that all software platforms successfully identify the most prominent subset of immunopeptides with 1% false discovery rate (FDR) control, achieving medium to high identification confidence correlations. The largest number of immunopeptides were identified using the commercial PEAKS software, which is closely followed by FragPipe, making it a viable non-commercial alternative. However, we observed that larger database sizes negatively impacted the performance of some software platforms more than others. These results provide valuable insights into the strengths and limitations of current MS data processing tools for immunopeptidomics, supporting the immunopeptidomics/MS community in determining the right choice of software.
- Citations
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Field percentile
- 19th percentile
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
- A platform for high-throughput and ultrasensitive immunopeptidomics
Adillah Gul, Laura Van Moortel, … Francis Impens·Molecular & Cellular ProteomicsPeer-reviewed·May 18, 2026
- MS2Rescore: Data-driven rescoring dramatically boosts immunopeptide identification rates
Arthur Declercq, Robbin Bouwmeester, … Ralf Gabriels·Molecular & Cellular ProteomicsPeer-reviewed·Jul 6, 2022
- Finely tuned DDA-PASEF-based immunopeptidomics workflow enhances HLA class I coverage
Jeewan Babu Rijal, Aurélie Hirschler, … Christine Carapito·bioRxiv·Nov 4, 2026
- Back to Basics: Spectrum and Peptide Sequence are Sufficient for Top-tier Mass Spectrometry Proteomics Identification
Maximilien Burq, Dejan Štepec, … Peter Cimermančič·bioRxiv·Aug 19, 2024
- Digging deeper into the immunopeptidome with TripleToolWF
Rupert Laurenz Mayer, Karl Mechtler·bioRxiv·Jun 29, 2026
- Data-independent immunopeptidomics discovery of low-abundant bacterial epitopes
Patrick Willems, An Staes, … Francis Impens·Journal of Proteome ResearchPeer-reviewed·Oct 30, 2025