Open acesnik opened 6 years ago
In an attempt at 2), I suppose the ambiguity grouping works nicely even for the same position:
PRO[A2G0F|#glycan:70][A2G1F|#glycan:30]TEOFORM
And with two positions, that is also possible, where the probability for the glycan is 70/30 at each site and the position likelihood is 80/20:
PRON[A2G0F|#glycanA:70|#position:40][A2G1F|#glycanA:30|#position:40]TEOFORN[A2G0F|#glycanB:70|#position:10][A2G1F|#glycanB:30|#position:10]
I'm actually confused by my own follow-up statement from last week. The #
mark would usually be used for the same modification at several locations, indicating it could be at one of the set. The #position
mark breaks that assumption, since it is used with a couple types of modifications, as does #glycanA
and #glycanB
.
I'm reading this MoFi paper right now, and it's reminding me of @veitveit's concern that we need to allow room for scores in PTMs.
I think we might need to formalize a solution for at least two categories of scores:
PROT[Phospho|#mod:20]EOFORMS[Phospho|#mod:80]
, as noted in https://github.com/topdownproteomics/sdk/issues/17Can anyone think of more categories of scores?