Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

protein groups parsing for FragPipe #301

Open
mlocardpaulet opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

protein groups parsing for FragPipe #301

mlocardpaulet opened this issue May 17, 2024 · 2 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@mlocardpaulet
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think that we parse correctly the ions in FragPipe.
In the .toml, I see this:

[mapper]
"Peptide Sequence" = "Sequence"
Protein = "Proteins"
Charge = "Charge"

So do we completely ignore the field Mapped Proteins?
In the combined.tsv table, there are two columns that we need to concatenate to get the protein groups: Proteins and Mapped Proteins. If we only consider the Proteins, we only have one accession from the group. This is not what we do for the other pipelines. This clearly overestimates the quantification error because peptide sequences that match several species will be considered in its calculation.

Here is what I get from the FragPipe output file description (https://fragpipe.nesvilab.org/docs/tutorial_fragpipe_outputs.html#combined_iontsv):

Protein protein sequence header corresponding to the identified peptide sequence; this will be the selected razor protein if the peptide maps to multiple proteins (in this case, other mapped proteins are listed in the ‘Mapped Proteins’ column)

So what we need to do is:
get the value from the column Proteins, concatenate with the value of Mapped Proteins, and use this as protein group identifyer. @brvpuyve correct me if I am wrong.
For information, when there are several accessions in Mapped Proteins, these are separated by ",".

@RobbinBouwmeester
Copy link
Contributor

Can you share the file, that should help us to debug.

@brvpuyve
Copy link
Contributor

@mlocardpaulet you are completely correct! My apologies for not spotting this sooner.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants