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

Feature request for HLA analysis #1034

Closed
fazeliniah opened this issue Nov 5, 2021 · 16 comments
Closed

Feature request for HLA analysis #1034

fazeliniah opened this issue Nov 5, 2021 · 16 comments

Comments

@fazeliniah
Copy link

Dear MSFragger developing team,
Thank you again for this amazing software. We are making good progress with using the none-specific HLA workflow in MSFragger.
Our collaborator is interested to do cleavage signature analysis for some the identified peptide. For this purpose, we need the amino acids in the protein sequence that are located at either up or downstream of detected peptides (3 AA either side). Please see the example in Figure 4: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7008090/
I hope you can add this feature and look forward to testing it.
Thanks

@fcyu fcyu assigned prvst, fcyu and anesvi Nov 5, 2021
@fcyu
Copy link
Member

fcyu commented Nov 5, 2021

Thanks for your kind words and suggestions.

It sounds like something that downstream analysis tools should do. But we will discuss internally and keep you posted.

Best,

Fengchao

@anesvi
Copy link
Collaborator

anesvi commented Nov 5, 2021 via email

@prvst
Copy link

prvst commented Nov 5, 2021

Yes, I think this can be done

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

Is there any update on this feature? I would be also highly interested in getting something like 6 residues (or more) on each site then I may could used the peptide outputs directly for cleavage specificity analysis after an unspecific search.

@prvst
Copy link

prvst commented Jan 16, 2023

I'm including this request for the next release

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

That would be amazing! Big big thanks already!

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

Hey Felipe! Is there any time estimate when this feature may will be available? Big thanks in advance already,
Ulrich

@prvst
Copy link

prvst commented Mar 10, 2023

I'm aiming for the upcoming release 5.0, in the following weeks

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

great to hear! :-)

@fcyu fcyu transferred this issue from Nesvilab/MSFragger Mar 11, 2023
@fcyu fcyu unassigned fcyu and anesvi Mar 11, 2023
@fcyu
Copy link
Member

fcyu commented Apr 6, 2023

Implemented in version 5.0.

@fcyu fcyu closed this as completed Apr 6, 2023
@fazeliniah
Copy link
Author

Hi, I am not sure if I see this new feature in version 5.0. Maybe I am missing something.

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

Hey Felip! Didn't find time yet to test it actually. Swamped with student assignments but I hope to find time in July to play with these data again! Big thanks already! u

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

Hi, I am not sure if I see this new feature in version 5.0. Maybe I am missing something.

Hey Fazeliniah!
probably you found it already, but just stumbled about the thread again. i think it is only implemented at the PSM level and not the peptide level. there is now a columns called "Extended Peptide", which has the 8 preceding and the 8 succeeding amino acids (separated from the identified peptide by a dot. so xxxxxxxx.peptide.xxxxxxxx).
cheers,
u

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

Hey MSFragger/FragPipe Team!
Just noticed something odd with the "extended peptide" column: when checking for a specific cleavage site, I realized that the "extended peptide" column didn't have the correct amino acid sequence and instead, two positions that are leucines in the database were indicated as isoleucine. So I checked quickly the amino acid occurrence within the left extended region, and indeed, I only got 0.22% occurrence for leucine, while 12.85% for isoleucine. In the "right" extended peptide region it is not as dramatic but still 2.09 vs 12.54% occurrence, so also likely something going wrong here. Any idea what could be happening?
Big thanks already!
u

@fcyu
Copy link
Member

fcyu commented Apr 21, 2024

Thanks for the feedback. I think it is due to this bug in Philosopher: Nesvilab/philosopher#430 . Hopefully, we will have a chance to work on this again.

Best,

Fengchao

@ulrich-eckhard
Copy link

it sounds similar indeed. but surprised that the same problem is in the bioinformatically-inferred/extended peptide regions. Big thanks already for looking into it!
u

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

No branches or pull requests

5 participants