Extensive and Accurate Benchmarking of DIA Acquisition Methods and Software Tools Using a Complex Proteomic Standard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade, the data-independent acquisition mode has gained popularity for broad coverage of complex proteomes by LC-MS/MS and quantification of low-abundance proteins. However, there is no consensus in the literature on the best data acquisition parameters and processing tools to use for this specific application. Here, we present the most comprehensive comparison of DIA workflows on Orbitrap instruments published so far in the field of proteomics. Using a standard human 48 proteins mixture (UPS1–Sigma) at 8 different concentrations in an E. coli proteome background, we tested 36 workflows including 4 different DIA window acquisition schemes and 6 different software tools (DIA-NN, DIA-Umpire, OpenSWATH, ScaffoldDIA, Skyline, and Spectronaut) with or without the use of a DDA spectral library. On the basis of the number of proteins identified, quantification linearity and reproducibility, as well as sensitivity and specificity in 28 pairwise comparisons of different UPS1 concentrations, we summarize the major considerations and propose guidelines for choosing the DIA workflow best suited for LC-MS/MS proteomic analyses. Our 96 DIA raw files and software outputs have been deposited on ProteomeXchange for testing or developing new DIA processing tools.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".