Figure 5.

Illustration of Minimum Redundancy of our Database. In this example, the sequence has two nearby variable sites with residues R and M colored in red. Residue R may be replaced by a residue W due to a possible SAP; while residue M may be replaced by a residue V or an acetylated methionine (M01, in our notation) due to respectively a possible SAP or PTM. This information is encoded in our sequence file as shown in part (A). To encode the same information, method proposed in reference [11] would have up to five additional highly similar peptides separated by a letter "J" appended to the end of the primary sequence, see part (B). Here a lower case m is used to denote the acetylated methionine. Another key difference in the two methods shown above is on the limit of allowed number of enzymatic miscleavages. In our method, there is no limit on the number of allowed miscleavages, while in other approaches, the number of miscleavages is usually set to below a certain threshold. As an example, in our method, the variant peptides SPVCTWLILGSKEQTVTIR and SPmCTWLILGSKEQTVTIR are already included in (A). But in the approach of reference [11], in order to allow consideration of this variant peptide, one either needs to additionally append this peptide or to have much longer flanking peptides than shown in (B).

Alves et al. BMC Genomics 2008 9:505   doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-505
Download authors' original image