MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2169204079 · doi:10.1074/mcp.m110.006387

Interpretation of Data Underlying the Link Between Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and an Invertebrate Iridescent Virus

2011· article· en· W2169204079 sur OpenAlexaff
Leonard J. Foster

Notice bibliographique

RevueMolecular & Cellular Proteomics · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueInsect and Pesticide Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIridescenceIridovirusBiologyVirusVirologyEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In a recent publication, Bromenshenk et al. claim that an iridovirus, Invertebrate Iridescent Virus-6 (IIV-6) 1The abbreviations used are:IIV-6invertebrate iridescent virus-6CCDcolony collapse disorderFDRfalse discovery rateLTQlinear trap quadrupole.1The abbreviations used are:IIV-6invertebrate iridescent virus-6CCDcolony collapse disorderFDRfalse discovery rateLTQlinear trap quadrupole., is tightly linked to colony collapse disorder (CCD, the cause of many of the bee losses over the past four winters) based on proteomic analyses of bees from CCD-afflicted and unafflicted colonies (1.Bromenshenk J.J. Henderson C.B. Wick C.H. Stanford M.F. Zulich A.W. Jabbour R.E. Deshpande S.V. McCubbin P.E. Seccomb R.A. Welch P.M. Williams T. Firth D.R. Skowronski E. Lehmann M.M. Bilimoria S.L. Gress J. Wanner K.W. Cramer Jr., R.A. Iridovirus and microsporidian linked to honey bee colony decline.PLoS One. 2010; 5: e13181Crossref PubMed Scopus (185) Google Scholar). We believe that there are fundamental flaws in the interpretation of their data based on the following rationale. First, liquid chromatography-tandem MS (LC-MS/MS) tends to identify the most abundant proteins much more frequently and the major capsid protein of IIV-6 constitutes at least 17% of total virion protein (2.Ince I.A. Boeren S.A. van Oers M.M. Vervoort J.J. Vlak J.M. Proteomic analysis of chilo iridescent virus.Virology. 2010; 405: 253-258Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar) yet of the 792 IIV-6 peptides reported by the authors, only four (0.5%) are from protein 274L, the major capsid protein. This is especially troubling because the authors rely on spectral counting to correlate IIV-6 levels with CCD. Second, in the list of identified peptides provided by the authors there is a high frequency of missed cleavage sites. Trypsin is a very reliable protease (3.Olsen J.V. Ong S.E. Mann M. Trypsin cleaves exclusively C-terminal to arginine and lysine residues.Mol Cell Proteomics. 2004; 3: 608-614Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (869) Google Scholar) and, indeed, if we examine some of our own recent large-scale bee proteomic data sets (available at http://www.ebi.ac.uk/pride/), we find that nearly 80% of all peptides are perfect tryptic peptides, with ∼18% containing one missed cleavage and a few percent containing two (Fig. 1, black bars). The peptides from Bromenshenk et al. are skewed dramatically toward greater numbers of missed cleavages (Fig. 1, light grey bars), which could be explained in one of two possible ways: (1) that the tryptic digest was inefficient, or (2) that many of the peptide identities are incorrect (i.e. a high false discovery rate (FDR)). Because there is no independent “gold standard” MS/MS data from IIV-6 proteins to compare against it is difficult to definitively evaluate the efficacy of trypsin from these data. However, other aspects of the described Methods suggest that the second possibility, a high FDR, is the more likely explanation: the authors state that they did not consider bee protein sequences when interpreting their MS/MS spectra, only pathogen protein sequences. Others have shown that when identifying proteins using a search engine such as SEQUEST or Mascot it is important to consider all the protein sequences that might be present in the sample or risk a high FDR (4.Cargile B.J. Bundy J.L. Stephenson Jr., J.L. Potential for false positive identifications from large databases through tandem mass spectrometry.J Proteome Res. 2004; 3: 1082-1085Crossref PubMed Scopus (173) Google Scholar). If we take the above-mentioned, large-scale LC-MS/MS dataset acquired on an linear trap quadrupole (LTQ)-OrbitrapXL, that should have similar fragmentation characteristics to the LTQ data reported by the authors, and search all 692,336 MS/MS against a database comprised only of proteins from IIV-6 and all other known bee viruses (i.e. no Apis mellifera sequences), we can also “identify” 103 IIV-6 peptides. However, if we include A. mellifera protein sequences in this search, as well as the virus sequences, then only a single IIV-6 peptide is found at an FDR of 1% based on reversed database searching: the other 102 spectra that matched IIV-6 peptides in the absence of bee sequences match considerably better to bee peptides than to IIV-6 peptides. In other words, at least 102 of the 103 matches were false discoveries when bee proteins were not considered. Interestingly, if one then plots the distribution of missed trypsin cleavages in the false IIV-6 peptides that we have “discovered,” the distribution is almost identical to that of the peptides from Bromenshenk et al. (Fig. 1, dark grey bars). We believe that there is currently insufficient evidence to conclude that bees are a natural host for IIV-6, let alone that the virus is linked to CCD. invertebrate iridescent virus-6 colony collapse disorder false discovery rate linear trap quadrupole. invertebrate iridescent virus-6 colony collapse disorder false discovery rate linear trap quadrupole.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,059
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,292

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,109
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations27
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueMolecular & Cellular ProteomicsMême sujetInsect and Pesticide ResearchTravaux en français237 207