Identification of proteins by mass spectrometry (MS) is an essential step in proteomic studies and is typically accomplished by either peptide mass fingerprinting (PMF) or amino acid sequencing of the peptide. Although sequence information from MS/MS analysis can be used to validate PMF-based protein identification, it may not be practical when analyzing a large number of proteins and when high- throughput MS/MS instrumentation is not readily available. At present, a vast majority of proteomic studies employ PMF. However, there are huge disparities in criteria used to identify proteins using PMF. Therefore, to reduce incorrect protein identification using PMF, and also to increase confidence in PMF-based protein identification without accompanying MS/MS analysis, definitive guiding principles are essential. To this end, we propose a value-based scoring system that provides guidance on evaluating when PMF-based protein identification can be deemed sufficient without accompanying amino acid sequence data from MS/MS analysis.
Algorithms ; Peptide Mapping ; methods ; statistics & numerical data ; Proteomics ; methods ; statistics & numerical data ; Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Identification of proteins by mass spectrometry (MS) is an essential step in pro- teomic studies and is typically accomplished by either peptide mass fingerprinting (PMF) or amino acid sequencing of the peptide. Although sequence information from MS/MS analysis can be used to validate PMF-based protein identification, it may not be practical when analyzing a large number of proteins and when high- throughput MS/MS instrumentation is not readily available. At present, a vast majority of proteomic studies employ PMF. However, there are huge disparities in criteria used to identify proteins using PMF. Therefore, to reduce incorrect protein identification using PMF, and also to increase confidence in PMF-based protein identification without accompanying MS/MS analysis, definitive guiding principles are essential. To this end, we propose a value-based scoring system that provides guidance on evaluating when PMF-based protein identification can be deemed sufficient without accompanying amino acid sequence data from MS/MS analysis.

Background: Although trichorhinophalangeal syndrome type 1 (TRPS1) was initially thought to be highly sensitive and specific for carcinomas and mesenchymal tumors of mammary origin, more recent data suggest its expression is not limited to breast neoplasms but also can be seen in other cutaneous neoplasms, such as extramammary Paget disease and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in situ. Methods: Two-hundred cases of non-melanocytic cutaneous neoplasm, including basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) (n = 41), SCCs (n = 35), Merkel cell carcinomas (MCCs) (n = 25), and adnexal neoplasms (n = 99), were tested for TRPS1 expression using a monoclonal anti- TRPS1 rabbit anti-human antibody. Results: TRPS1 expression was present in almost all cases of SCC (94%), with a median H-score of 200, while it was either absent or only focally present in most BCCs (90%), with a median H-score of 5. The difference between BCCs and SCCs in H-score was significant (p < .001). All MCCs (100%) lacked TRPS1 expression. TRPS1 expression was frequently seen in most adnexal neoplasms, benign and malignant, in variable intensity and proportion but was consistently absent in apocrine carcinomas. All endocrine mucin-producing sweat gland carcinomas (EMPSGCs) (100%, 6/6) showed diffuse and strong TRPS1 immunoreactivity, with a median H-score of 300, which was significantly different (p < .001) than that of BCCs. Conclusions Our study shows that TRPS1 may be an effective discriminatory marker for BCCs and SCCs. It also has a role in distinguishing BCCs from EMPSGCs.