I believe that some search engines, such as X!Tandem, will not give the same results if one splits an mgf into "n" files and searches them separately and then later concatenates the results. (I believe this is because X!Tandem makes use of which proteins are identified by one set of spectra/peptides to help boost/penalize the score of other spectra/peptides.)
However, with msfg-plus, is there are reason why it would be dangerous to split an mgf file into "n" parts and search of them separately and then later recombine the results (eg by simple concatenation of tsv files)?
On a different but partly related note, the input mgf or mzML files sometimes specify a specific precursor (ie ms1) tolerance for each spectrum, and this tolerance values is different for different spectra. Is there a (good?) way to get msgfplus to use the precursor tolerance settings defined per spectrum (in an mgf file) instead of having a single, global precursor tolerance for the whole mgf file?
I believe that some search engines, such as X!Tandem, will not give the same results if one splits an mgf into "n" files and searches them separately and then later concatenates the results. (I believe this is because X!Tandem makes use of which proteins are identified by one set of spectra/peptides to help boost/penalize the score of other spectra/peptides.)
However, with msfg-plus, is there are reason why it would be dangerous to split an mgf file into "n" parts and search of them separately and then later recombine the results (eg by simple concatenation of tsv files)?
On a different but partly related note, the input mgf or mzML files sometimes specify a specific precursor (ie ms1) tolerance for each spectrum, and this tolerance values is different for different spectra. Is there a (good?) way to get msgfplus to use the precursor tolerance settings defined per spectrum (in an mgf file) instead of having a single, global precursor tolerance for the whole mgf file?