Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-14 Thread Oded
Hi David, This time I used *xinteract -NinteractDecoyCount.pep.xml -p0.05 -l7 -PPM -OANEdp -dDECOY0 Seq69478_QE2.pep.xml. * With TPP 5.2 the count of DECOY1 ids at 1% error rate is 84 and the total count of DECOY ids is 151 (out of 7102 PSMs). With TPP 6.0 the count of DECOY1 ids at 1% error

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-13 Thread 'David Shteynberg' via spctools-discuss
Hi Oded, I think the old 5.2.0 might be under estimating the error rate as compared to the new release candidate. You cannot see the decoys here because of the settings you used. However your database has two independent sets of decoys available DECOY0 and DECOY1. Can you use one of the set

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-13 Thread Oded
Dear David, This is PeptideProphet issue (we don't use iProphet for this analysis). With the search parameters that I sent you followed by running the PeptideProphet command of *xinteract -Ninteract.pep.xml -p0.05 -l7 -PPM -OANEp -dDECOY Seq69478_QE2.pep.xml,* and lastly using a cutoff of 1%

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread 'David Shteynberg' via spctools-discuss
Dear Oded, Thanks for this. I ran a quick test and I actually observed a few more PSMs for PeptideProphet 6.0.0-rc14 for the same PeptideProphet probability cutoff for this dataset. Is the issue you see with PeptideProphet or iProphet results? Which spectra were getting excluded in the your

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread Oded
And also the search results with the new vs the old version (although I think they are more or less the same): https://www.dropbox.com/t/8VyBVdeuoWdk982q On Tuesday, 13 April 2021 at 00:09:05 UTC+3 Oded wrote: > Hi David, > You can find the mzML, Comet parameters and FASTA file here: >

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread Oded
Hi David, You can find the mzML, Comet parameters and FASTA file here:https://www.dropbox.com/t/Yld0ZBWhsuFajeLj The link is valid for 7 days. Many thanks, Oded On Monday, 12 April 2021 at 23:46:08 UTC+3 David Shteynberg wrote: > I don't mind taking a crack at it over vacation. Please let me

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread 'David Shteynberg' via spctools-discuss
I don't mind taking a crack at it over vacation. Please let me know where I can pull the data from. I might not have quick solution for you but I can get started looking for the problem. Which search engine did you use here? I would need mzML data search results and the fasta database to get

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread Oded
Hi David, Thank you for the quick reply. We are using TPP v6.0.0-rc14 Noctilucent, Build 202103031119-8400 (Windows_NT-x86_64). As for the data let me know when you are back and I will transfer you either the raw file or the search results. Enjoy your vacation. Thanks, Oded On Monday, 12 April

Re: [spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread 'David Shteynberg' via spctools-discuss
Hi Oded, Which release candidate are you referring to? The earlier candidates may have a bug that is corrected in a later version. If you can share some data and specifics about the missing PSMs I can run it here and troubleshoot the problem. Thanks! David P.S. I am on vacation this week so

[spctools-discuss] Changes in number of peptides identifications in TPP 6.0 RC

2021-04-12 Thread Oded
Hi there, We recently download the TPP 6.0 RC and while using it we noticed that we obtain fewer peptides IDs than what we got for the same dataset and search output with version 5.2. Many of the missing peptides seem to have decent Expect value and MS/MS following a visual inspection. This