Open animesh opened 1 year ago
Cannot really comment on MaxQuant. In general, if software A detect more peptides/proteins than software B, those extra IDs will likely be low-abundant, which means their quantities will be noisy.
I See that i am not using same parameters as well, for example
Hi Ani,
What I would suggest, is to first do the analysis following the guidelines in DIA-NN docs, most importantly keeping things default (e.g. M(ox) not enabled) unless explicitly advised otherwise therein, and once you have those results, can experiment with adding extra stuff & see if this is beneficial.
'iq' or 'diann' R package, filter the data frame for Proteotypic == 1. Or use Genes.MaxLFQ.Unique pre-computed by DIA-NN. But for most scenarious using PG.MaxLFQ or Genes.MaxLFQ is fine.
Protein inference in DIA-NN is always at sequence ID level, but the 'Protein inference' setting provides a hint to DIA-NN which sequence IDs can be naturally grouped together, so keeping it at the default 'Genes' makes sense.
Best, Vadim
Thanks for the reco @vdemichev 👍🏽 BTW is there a way to create msms and evidence.txt from DIA-NN library -free search/Fasta file which i can use as input to MaxDIA?
I am trying to compare MaxQuant v 2.4 mqpar..xml.txt with DIA-NN v 1.8.1
And i see that there about about 185 protein-groups quantified by MaxQuant proteinGroups.txt with following scatter plot/R^2 (in blue)
while DIA-NN has 251 report.pg_matrix.tsv.txt with R^2
So it looks like more quantifications but disperse, specially at lower end of distribution?
When i compare the IDs (probably it is not fair, i used defaults for inference)
N: Count T: Datasets 138 Dataset 1 72 Dataset 2 113 Dataset 1;Dataset 2 comparePGs.txt with following scatter for common IDs
So i am not sure what these uniques are and what is the cause of discrepancy, essentially what to trust? Quantified in both with similar values? Or compare in better way maybe?