Re: [spctools-discuss] negative probabilities in peptide prophet with results from SpectraST search with library with decoys

2017-06-19 Thread Carolina
Hi, Ok. I will send to you both. Also, I hope you got my other answer where I told you that the trypsin was the problem... do not know why... El lunes, 19 de junio de 2017, 11:20:48 (UTC-7), David Shteynberg escribió: > > Hi Carolina, > > It appears the file you've sent me does contain mixture

Re: [spctools-discuss] negative probabilities in peptide prophet with results from SpectraST search with library with decoys

2017-06-19 Thread Carolina
Hello David, I would like you to check the results if you have time. I thought it was weird because I have two other replicates and they are fine with high res, it is QE data, but again, you might be right and this sample is having some issue with high res. They are DDA data with three

[spctools-discuss] Analyze peptides- error

2017-06-19 Thread Ada A
Hello, I was trying to run peptide analysis with PeptideProphet but it keeps showig me error... I was using dimethyl labeling technique and peptides were identified using Mascot. I exported all data from Mascot, uploaded here and it fails to do anything. I was wondering whether anyone could

Re: [spctools-discuss] negative probabilities in peptide prophet with results from SpectraST search with library with decoys

2017-06-19 Thread David Shteynberg
Hi Carolina, It appears the file you've sent me does contain mixture models, so I am really not sure why you are seeing this message at all. If you can send the input file for both one that shows the warning and one that doesn't I might be able to figure it out. Cheers, David On Mon, Jun 19,

Re: [spctools-discuss] negative probabilities in peptide prophet with results from SpectraST search with library with decoys

2017-06-19 Thread Carolina
Hi Davi, I found my problem with that sample, finally it was a problem with the type of enzyme, in high resolution the type of enzyme was 2, and in low res it was 1. When I changed that for 1 in high resolution the probabilities were fine again. So something with that option was messing my