Analysis of mass spectrometry data using subspectra
 Wouter Meuleman^{1, 2}Email author,
 Judith YMN Engwegen^{3},
 MarieChristine W Gast^{3},
 Lodewyk FA Wessels^{1, 2} and
 Marcel JT Reinders^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471210510S1S51
© Meuleman et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009
Published: 30 January 2009
Abstract
Background
Spectra resulting from SurfaceEnhanced Laser Desorption/Ionisation (SELDI) mass spectrometry measurements are constructed by combining subspectra, each of which are the result of a single firing of the laser responsible for the process of desorption/ionisation. These firings are performed at different locations of the spot on which the sample is analysed. The final spectrum is then constructed by summing over all these subspectra. This process is suboptimal in that it can average out peaks from peptides that are present in low abundance or are unevenly distributed across the spot, particularly because the amount of noise varies considerably between subspectra. This argues for analysing subspectra separately and combining results afterwards.
Results
Here, we propose to analyse these subspectra onebyone and combine the results using a framework which includes a significance test. This allows one to, for the first time, attach a confidence measure to detected peaks, based on the signal strength of a peak across subspectra. In a comparison with three other approaches the subspectral approach achieves a higher sensitivity and a low FDR. We further introduce the notion of peakbags, which provide rich information about the subspectral contributions to a given peak.
Conclusion
The proposed procedure offers better control over the process of distinguishing signal from noise, resulting in an improved performance over other available methods. Moreover, our method provides an implicit deconvolution of peaks, yielding insight in the actual shape of a peak, potentially aiding in a deeper understanding of peak distribution.
Availability
Implementations of the algorithm in R are available upon request.
Keywords
Background
SurfaceEnhanced Laser Desorption/Ionisation (SELDI) TimeOfFlight (TOF) mass spectrometry [1] allows one to scan the (sub)proteome of a biological sample. The sample, e.g., purified serum, is applied to a spot on a chip and repeatedly irradiated by a laser, which causes peptides contained in the sample to desorb from the spot and become ionised (charged), which is crucial for the subsequent process of massseparation and detection.
The used laser beam has, depending on the machine model employed, either an elliptical or round shape. In any case, its size does not allow for a full coverage of the complete spot in one go. Therefore, in order to cover most of it, the laser probes different positions of the spot, resulting in subspectra (also termed singleshot spectra or transients) for each location. By default, a final spectrum is constructed by summing over all subspectra, which is then presented to the user.
The individual subspectra however, contain a wealth of information, that is normally missed by studying full spectra only. This includes information on spatial differences between subspectra, such as the total protein and matrix material content and the amount of noise, which all can vary considerably between subspectra due to, e.g., inhomogeneity of the sample and various experimental factors.
This is made more clear in Figure 1b. The first two panels show subspectra at spot positions 9 and 10 for the mass region corresponding to the ubiquitin protein. This clearly shows the large possible differences in signal between spot positions. The third panel shows the full spectrum, resulting from averaging over all subspectra. Indeed, here the ubiquitin peak is not significantly higher than the background.
In case of an inhomogeneous distribution of peptides over the spot, for example in the case of a low abundant peptide, taking the mean over all subspectra with these highly varying signal and noise levels can average out peaks, causing only the most abundant peptides to appear in the final spectrum. In Additional file 1, section 1, we describe a simple experiment that simulates this behaviour, showing that for arbitrary signals with varying noise levels it is indeed beneficial to study them separately.
We are not alone [2] in believing that the default data acquisition process is suboptimal and that it is beneficial to analyse individual subspectra and combining findings afterwards. Sköld et al. have also analysed subspectra before, mainly within the scope of imputing missing values, i.e., identifying and recovering saturated spectral peaks. Our focus is on peak detection. More specifically, by analysing individual subspectra and combining results afterwards, we account for differences in noise levels between spot positions, decreasing the chance of losing peaks from peptides that are present in low abundance or are unevenly distributed over the spot.
Furthermore, we are able to quantify the confidence of detected peaks being true positives. The analysis of subspectra allows us to test the significance of peaks based on their amplitude in these subspectra, largely eliminating the need for (arbitrary) parameter settings during the peak detection process.
Results and discussion
The approach we take involves a lowlevel analysis of individual subspectra using wavelets, followed by a method to assess the significance of peaks detected in the subspectra. We show that our method compares favourably to a number of existing methods by using spectra resulting from a carefully designed spiking experiment. Furthermore, we show that our method offers an implicit deconvolution of peaks through the notion of peakbags.
Analysis of subspectra
SELDI (sub)spectra exhibit much noise, including a strong baseline effect caused by the use of energy absorbing matrix material inherent to the technology. Conventionally, this baseline effect is estimated and subtracted from the data explicitly, using ad hoc baseline correction algorithms. Methods based on wavelets [3–5] model this noise implicitly, assuming its frequency and shape is fundamentally different from that of the signal.
We use the algorithm proposed by Du et al. [4] to detect peaks in individual subspectra. They use an approach based on a continuous wavelet transform. By scaling and translating a socalled mother wavelet function, a spectrum is decomposed into a 'scale space', where low scales model high frequency noise and high scales model low frequency global trends in the data. Peaks can be found by identifying ridges in this scale space, corresponding to regions where the spectrum is highly correlated with the wavelet function.
This process is described in more detail in the Methods section ('Wavelet analysis on full spectrum'). Although we consider the scale space approach taken by Du et al. to be elegant, their algorithm employs a number of fairly arbitrarily chosen parameters to identify ridges as being peaks. For instance, the range and number of scales across which ridges are detected and a signaltonoise ratio threshold. Instead, we consider all ridges detected in subspectra to be candidate peaks and use them as input to subsequent analyses, regardless of these parameters.
Peak significance
In order to assess peak significance, we aggregate the wavelet analysis results from all subspectra. To obtain the aggregate spectrum, we sum the subspectral values per m/z value across all subspectra (Figure 2c). The significance of one particular m/z position is assessed by comparing the value in the summed peak spectrum to a null distribution, yielding a pvalue. This null distribution is the probability density function associated with the random variable which is obtained by summing n (number of subspectra) random variables distributed according to Q. In other words, this null distribution is a summed sampling distribution of Q, denoted Q_{Σ}. Please refer to the Methods section ('Peak significance test') for a more elaborate discussion on this procedure.
Mass spectrometers suffer from a limited mass accuracy. To account for small deviations in peak positions across subspectra, we extend the significance test to multiple m/z positions simultaneously, i.e., all positions contained in a sliding window of size w. For multiple window sizes, this results in a second scale space of pvalues with the m/z positions of the window on the horizontal axis and the window size on the vertical axis. Each position contains the pvalue of the test result at that m/z position with the given window size. All pvalues are corrected for multiple testing per window size (i.e., rowwise) over all nonempty windows using the procedure proposed by Benjamini and Hochberg [6].
In this second scale space, we now search for clusters containing as many m/z positions as possible that are significant and have at most one contribution from each subspectrum. The latter is used to prevent finding clusters containing peaks for actually different peptides; these should result in separate clusters. We start the search from the most significant peak at a minimal window size. In an iterative process, the window size is gradually increased, up to the point where either

the combined values of peaks within the window are not significant anymore, or

we include more than one contribution from a single subspectrum.
The results of this procedure we call peakbags and they encompass a central peak position, a range of m/z values in a window centered around this peak position, and a signal level for each m/z value, also registering which subspectra contributed to this signal. The signal level is a summation of the wavelet coefficient values for the contributing subspectra.
The next significant position is Position 5 (window size 3). However, this has two contributions from the same subspectrum (the black peaks). Position 5 alone (i.e., at window size 1) is not significant. Therefore, no new peakbag is defined. However, in Panel (c) the appropriate elements in the significance scale space are still greyed out. This is to avoid reanalysis of Position 5. Position 14 at window size 5 is significant, contains only single contributions and no larger window exists. It is selected as a second peakbag. Panel (d) shows the result of greying out the appropriate elements again. No significant elements are remaining, finalising the analysis.
Experiments
We performed SELDITOF mass spectrometry twice on 16 samples containing a mixture of 5 spiking peptides. This way, we obtained 32 full spectra and their respective subspectra. The spiking peptides used are dynorphin (2147.5 Da), ACTH 1–24 (2933.5 Da), βendorphin (3465.6 Da), insulin (cow pancreas; 5733.6 Da) and ubiquitin (8564.8 Da).
We employed our subspectral analysis method and compared the obtained peakbags to the results of three methods for analysing full mass spectra. These are the waveletbased method proposed by Du et al. [4], a standard method implemented in the PROcess Rpackage and another method implemented in the MASDA Rpackage. MASDA implements an elementary SELDITOF analysis pipeline, used for the comparison of normalisation methods [7]. Except for the approach presented here, all these methods employ a signaltonoise ratio cutoff in order to detect peaks.
Ideally, the sensitivity of a method should be as high as possible, while keeping the FDR as small as possible. In other words, we would like to be as much as possible towards the topleft position of the graph in Figure 4.
The subspectral analysis clearly outperforms the other (full spectrum based) methods by achieving both a high sensitivity and low FDR across a relatively large range of pvalue thresholds. Even when the FDR is high, the sensitivity of the subspectral analysis clearly outperforms all other approaches. Although it has been shown in the literature [4, 5] that the waveletbased analysis often outperforms the traditional analysis methods, such as the one implemented in the MASDA package, here it only seems to outperform the latter in the low FDR range. This is, however, not so bad, as in most proteomics analyses it is actually desirable to keep the FDR at a low level. The PROcess package generally performs the worst. Although it displays the lowest FDR, its sensitivity is extremely low.
Peakbags
The methods implemented by Du et al. and the PROcess package find only one peak here, namely the largest one. The MASDA package finds some of the adduct peaks as well, albeit at an unrealisticly low signaltonoise ratio cutoff. Subspectral analysis however, yields multiple peakbags. In the figure, each colour represents a peakbag with its associated peak positions and amplitudes. Note that these peakbags are selected with p < 0.05 and have at most one contribution from each subspectrum, as shown in Figure 5.
Conclusion
We have shown that analysing subspectra allows one to find real peaks not found by other methods. Our results are not heavily dependent on parameter settings, such as a signaltonoise ratio threshold for detecting peaks. Instead, for the first time, we provide a confidence measure for peaks in the form of pvalues, reducing the false positive rate and yielding a better sensitivity.
Furthermore, our notion of peakbags provides information on the variability and distribution of peaks across subspectra and their contribution to the aggregate (full) spectrum. This provides a more complete representation of peaks, impossible to obtain using full spectra. Effectively, our approach offers an implicit way of deconvoluting spectra.
Methods
Sample preprocessing
Spiking mixture was freshly prepared from individual peptides (Ciphergen Biosystems Inc., Freemont, CA, USA). A 100 μlstock solution containing a mixture of dynorphin (2147.5 Da), ACTH 1–24 (2933.5 Da), βendorphin (3465.6 Da), insulin (cow pancreas; 5733.6 Da) and ubiquitin (8564.8 Da), each 1 nmol/100 μl, in deionised water was prepared. In pilot experiments the optimal dilution for spiking in matrix was assessed, resulting in an optimal dilution of 1:1000 when applying 20 μl of sample and 2 μl of matrix to the chip.
Before the experiment, the serum sample was thawed and denatured by adding 190 μl of a solution of 9 M urea and 2% CHAPS, (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) to 10 μl of serum. As energy absorbing matrix a 50% solution of sinapinic acid (SPA; Ciphergen Biosystems) in 50% acetonitrile (ACN) + 0.5% trifluoracetic acid (TFA) was used. Spiked matrix was prepared by adding 6 μl of a 1:15 dilution of spiking solution to a total of 400 μl SPA solution.
We performed SELDITOF mass spectrometry (Ciphergen Biosystems) with CM10 chips (weak cation exchange chip containing anionic carboxylate groups that bind positively charged proteins in serum) with a 100 mM sodium acetate (Sigma) binding buffer, pH 4, and a 50 mM HEPES wash buffer.
During all steps of the protocol, the bioprocessor was placed on a platform shaker at 350 rpm. Chips were equilibrated twice with 200 μl of binding buffer for 5 min. Subsequently, 180 μl of binding buffer and 20 μl of denatured sample were applied to the chip surface. Incubation was set to 30 min. After binding, the chips were washed twice for 5 min with binding buffer, followed by two 5min washes with wash buffer. Lastly, chips were rinsed with deionised water, airdried and finished with two 1μl SPA applications to the sample spots.
Data acquisition
Protein chips were analysed using the PBSIIC ProteinChip Reader (Ciphergen Biosystems). Data were collected between 0 and 100000 Da, optimisation range from 1500 to 50000 Da, laser intensity 155, detector sensitivity 5 and laser focusing at 10000 Da. We probed spot positions 20 to 80, with intervals of 5 and with five repeat shots per position, yielding in total 65 subspectra per spot. For information on how to obtain subspectra, please refer to Additional file 1, section 6.
We performed a twoway ANOVA analysis, with 'spot position' and 'repeat shot index' as covariates, to test whether there are significant differences in noise levels that can be explained by either one of these covariates. We confirmed the findings of [2] in the sense that in general we find a significant portion of the variance to be explained by spot position and not by shot index. This lead us to the decision to sum subspectra on a perposition basis, thereby reducing the computational complexity of the study, while still enabling us to show the potential of our method. This procedure leads to the 13 subspectra described in the paper.
Full spectrum approaches
PROcess Rpackage
We use the PROcess Rpackage exactly as recommended in the accompanying documentation (i.e., the R vignette). The peak discriminating parameter we vary for the performance assessment is the signaltonoise ratio.
MASDA Rpackage
An often used method of analysing a mass spectrum is by extracting the (monotonically decreasing) baseline signal, normalising the spectrum and detecting peaks above a certain prespecified noise level. Normalisation is done here using a method found to perform well in an earlier study [7], namely by extracting the mean from a spectrum and subsequently dividing it by the standard deviation. Peaks are selected above a threshold (the signaltonoise ratio), defined by the mean plus a number of times the standard devation, both of which are estimated within a local window of 1000 measurement points. These procedures are implemented in the MASDA Rpackage for mass spectrometry data analysis, freely available from [8].
Wavelet analysis on full spectrum
Following [4], we employ a mexican hat mother wavelet, which is proportional to the second derivative of a Gaussian function and is similar in shape to actual peaks found in a mass spectrum.
The mother wavelet is scaled and translated over spectra, during which the inner product between the wavelet and the signal is calculated, resulting in a scale space of wavelet coefficients. This scale space is used to extract features, i.e., peaks, from spectra.
Ridges in this space are identified, by locating local maxima over scales. Du et al. then filter these according to a certain parameter set, consisting of, among others, the range of scales in which peaks are detected, the minimal length of identified ridges and a signaltonoise ratio threshold. The m/z axis locations of the ridges that pass these filtering steps they label as peak positions. We used the default parameters, such as used in [4]. Additional file 1 (section 2) contains an illustration of this analyis.
Analysis of subspectra
To analyse subspectra, we used the same procedure as for full spectra, except that we do not employ the parameters proposed by Du et al.. We do not filter ridges at this point to distinguish 'real' peaks from 'noise' peaks. Rather, we retain information on all identified ridges, in order to construct a noise distribution.
Estimating the noise distribution
 1.
Q' = P
 2.
Remove upper 0.01% quantile values from Q'
 3.
Fit a Gamma distribution to Q'
 4.
Assess maximum squared error (MSE) between fitted Gamma and Q'
 5.
Go to step 2
The Gamma for which the MSE is lowest, i.e., only containing 'noise' peaks, is selected as the noise distribution Q. Please also refer to Additional file 1 (section 4) for more information on this. The detection of peaks then follows the procedure as described in the main text, and peakbags are constructed using a significance threshold (pvalue).
Peak significance test
The wavelet analysis results for a random, noiseonly, spectrum can effectively be seen as a sampling from the estimated distribution Q ~ Γ (k, θ). Per subspectrum and m/z position, one value is drawn from Q. For n acquired subspectra, n values are drawn. The value for one m/z position in a full (summed) spectrum is therefore approximately the sum of these n values. The random variable representing this sum follows a summed sampling distribution, Q_{Σ}, of nsummed values drawn from Q. It follows from the Central Limit Theorem that for large enough n, the distribution of Q_{Σ} approximates a Normal distribution, defined by N(nkθ, nkθ^{2}), where kθ and kθ^{2} are the mean and variance of Q, respectively. For one particular m/z position, the significance can be assessed by comparing the summed signal of all s peaks at that position, plus n – s times the mean of Q (i.e., kθ), against Q_{Σ}. For multiple m/z positions, i.e., in a sliding window of size w, a summed sampling distribution is used where n is multiplied by the window size w and s is equal to the number of peaks in the window.
OC curve construction
We assessed the performances of the different peak detection methods using Operating Characteristic curves. Such curves are similar to Receiver Operating Characteristics curves, which register the tradeoff between sensitivity and specificity. OC curves however, utilise the False Discovery Rate instead of specificity. This is much more useful in the context of mass spectrometry data, as the presence of real and noisy peaks is extremely unbalanced, in favour of the latter.
Here, the set of positives (P) consists of all peaks detected by a method in one run. True positives are peaks corresponding to the mass of the five spikedin peptides described earlier. A peak is called a true positive if it lies within 0.2% [9–11] of the mass of one of these peptides plus one proton [12]. False negatives are the true positive peaks not found by a method. False positives are peaks detected by a method that do not correspond to any one of the spikedin peptides.
In order to construct an OC curve, results are obtained for each method while varying a parameter value that determines the number of peaks detected by that method. This threshold is the pvalue resulting from the significance test for the subspectra based method and the signaltonoise ratio for all other methods. Results from the 32 spectra assessed are averaged per threshold value and plotted. A line is fitted through these points using a local running median function.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the BioRange programme of the Netherlands Bioinformatics Centre (NBIC), which is supported by a BSIK grant through the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI).
This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 10 Supplement 1, 2009: Proceedings of The Seventh Asia Pacific Bioinformatics Conference (APBC) 2009. The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712105/10?issue=S1
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Wright GL Jr, Cazares LH, Leung SM, Nasim S, Adam BL, Yip TT, Schellhammer PF, Gong L, Vlahou A: Proteinchip(R) surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization (SELDI) mass spectrometry: a novel protein biochip technology for detection of prostate cancer biomarkers in complex protein mixtures. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 1999, 2(5/6):264–276.Google Scholar
 Sköld M, Ryden T, Samuelsson V, Bratt C, Ekblad L, Olsson H, Baldetorp B: Regression analysis and modelling of data acquisition for SELDITOF mass spectrometry. Bioinformatics 2007. btm104. btm104.Google Scholar
 Lio P: Wavelets in bioinformatics and computational biology: state of art and perspectives. Bioinformatics 2003, 19: 2–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Du P, Kibbe WA, Lin SM: Improved peak detection in mass spectrum by incorporating continuous wavelet transformbased pattern matching. Bioinformatics 2006, 22: 2059–2065.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Lange E, Gröpl C, Reinert K, Kohlbacher O, Hildebrandt A: HighAccuracy Peak Picking of Proteomics Data Using Wavelet Techniques. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2006, 11: 243–254.Google Scholar
 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1995, 57: 289–300.Google Scholar
 Meuleman W, Engwegen J, Gast M, Beijnen J, Reinders M, Wessels L: Comparison of normalisation methods for SurfaceEnhanced Laser Desorption and Ionisation TimeOfFlight Mass Spectrometry data. BMC Bioinformatics 2008., 9(88):Google Scholar
 NKI Bioinformatics group website[http://bioinformatics.nki.nl]
 Grizzle WE, Semmes OJ, Bigbee W, Zhu L, Malik G, Oelschlager DK, Manne B, Manne U: The Need for Review and Understanding of SELDI/MALDI Mass Spectroscopy Data Prior to Analysis. Cancer Informatics 2005, 1: 86–97.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
 Yasui Y, Pepe M, Thompson ML, Adam BL, Wright J, George L, Qu Y, Potter JD, Winget M, Thornquist M, Feng Z: A dataanalytic strategy for protein biomarker discovery: profiling of highdimensional proteomic data for cancer detection. Biostat 2003, 4(3):449–463.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Adam BL, Qu Y, Davis JW, Ward MD, Clements MA, Cazares LH, Semmes OJ, Schellhammer PF, Yasui Y, Feng Z, Wright J, George L: Serum Protein Fingerprinting Coupled with a Patternmatching Algorithm Distinguishes Prostate Cancer from Benign Prostate Hyperplasia and Healthy Men. Cancer Res 2002, 62(13):3609–3614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Dijkstra M, Vonk RJ, Jansen RC: SELDITOF mass spectra: A view on sources of variation. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2006.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.