-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
_rankN pepXML files #334
Comments
Two major reasons
Best, Fengchao |
True. Maybe multiple spectrum_query elements in that case? That is the way it's supposed to work for assumed_charge in the chimeric DDA case. |
Yes, multiple But then, how to specify the ranks of the same spectrum? Best, Fengchao |
Yes, because of the assumed_charge thing they don't have to be unique. The ranks would be specific to a hypothetical precursor (theoretical mass and charge). |
Sorry that my previous question is not clear. How to specify the rank 1, 2, 3 for the Thanks, Fengchao |
Each spectrum_query should start with hit_rank=1. Think of the rank as being for the hypothetical precursor ion rather than for the spectrum. Isn't that how it already works with the _rank1, _rank2 separate files? |
In the _rank1, _rank2 files, we get the rank information by the file name. If we put all ranks in the same file and separate them in different Thanks, Fengchao |
Yes, I suppose if you need to aggregate everything back at the spectrum level, you'll have to regenerate the ranks by whatever score you want to use. For percolator I'd expect to use its q-value to do the reranking so potentially something that was rank 2 will become rank 1. |
Thanks. Then, I need to make the changes and test if the downstream tools such as PeptideProphet and Philosopher support it. Best, Fengchao |
Why does MSFragger in DIA mode write pepXML files with rank suffixes instead of using the hit_rank="N" attribute in a single pepXML? Is there an option to always write the DDA way?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: