↓ Skip to main content

Computational Methods for Protein Identification from Mass Spectrometry Data

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, February 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computational Methods for Protein Identification from Mass Spectrometry Data
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, February 2008
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0040012
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leo McHugh, Jonathan W Arthur

Abstract

Protein identification using mass spectrometry is an indispensable computational tool in the life sciences. A dramatic increase in the use of proteomic strategies to understand the biology of living systems generates an ongoing need for more effective, efficient, and accurate computational methods for protein identification. A wide range of computational methods, each with various implementations, are available to complement different proteomic approaches. A solid knowledge of the range of algorithms available and, more critically, the accuracy and effectiveness of these techniques is essential to ensure as many of the proteins as possible, within any particular experiment, are correctly identified. Here, we undertake a systematic review of the currently available methods and algorithms for interpreting, managing, and analyzing biological data associated with protein identification. We summarize the advances in computational solutions as they have responded to corresponding advances in mass spectrometry hardware. The evolution of scoring algorithms and metrics for automated protein identification are also discussed with a focus on the relative performance of different techniques. We also consider the relative advantages and limitations of different techniques in particular biological contexts. Finally, we present our perspective on future developments in the area of computational protein identification by considering the most recent literature on new and promising approaches to the problem as well as identifying areas yet to be explored and the potential application of methods from other areas of computational biology.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
United Kingdom 5 2%
Germany 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 197 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 23%
Researcher 43 19%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 42 19%
Unknown 31 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 79 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 14%
Computer Science 25 11%
Chemistry 14 6%
Engineering 12 5%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 31 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2009.
All research outputs
#6,358,770
of 25,576,801 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,309
of 9,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,208
of 95,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#21
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,801 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 95,137 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.