No abstract

Controlled vocabularies (CVs), i.e. a collection of predefined terms describing a modeling domain, used for the semantic annotation of data, and ontologies are used in structured data formats and databases to avoid inconsistencies in annotation, to have a unique (and preferably short) accession number and to give researchers and computer algorithms the possibility for more expressive semantic annotation of data. The Human Proteome Organization (HUPO)–Proteomics Standards Initiative (PSI) makes extensive use of ontologies/CVs in their data formats. The PSI-Mass Spectrometry (MS) CV contains all the terms used in the PSI MS–related data standards. The CV contains a logical hierarchical structure to ensure ease of maintenance and the development of software that makes use of complex semantics. The CV contains terms required for a complete description of an MS analysis pipeline used in proteomics, including sample labeling, digestion enzymes, instrumentation parts and parameters, software used for identification and quantification of peptides/proteins and the parameters and scores used to determine their significance. Owing to the range of topics covered by the CV, collaborative development across several PSI working groups, including proteomics research groups, instrument manufacturers and software vendors, was necessary. In this article, we describe the overall structure of the CV, the process by which it has been developed and is maintained and the dependencies on other ontologies.Database URL: http://psidev.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/psidev/psi/psi-ms/mzML/controlledVocabulary/psi-ms.obo

Objective To describe the goals of the Proteomics Standards Initiative (PSI) of the Human Proteome Organization, the methods that the PSI has employed to create data standards, the resulting output of the PSI, lessons learned from the PSI’s evolution, and future directions and synergies for the group.Materials and Methods The PSI has 5 categories of deliverables that have guided the group. These are minimum information guidelines, data formats, controlled vocabularies, resources and software tools, and dissemination activities. These deliverables are produced via the leadership and working group organization of the initiative, driven by frequent workshops and ongoing communication within the working groups. Official standards are subjected to a rigorous document process that includes several levels of peer review prior to release.Results We have produced and published minimum information guidelines describing what information should be provided when making data public, either via public repositories or other means. The PSI has produced a series of standard formats covering mass spectrometer input, mass spectrometer output, results of informatics analysis (both qualitative and quantitative analyses), reports of molecular interaction data, and gel electrophoresis analyses. We have produced controlled vocabularies that ensure that concepts are uniformly annotated in the formats and engaged in extensive software development and dissemination efforts so that the standards can efficiently be used by the community.Conclusion In its first dozen years of operation, the PSI has produced many standards that have accelerated the field of proteomics by facilitating data exchange and deposition to data repositories. We look to the future to continue developing standards for new proteomics technologies and workflows and mechanisms for integration with other omics data types. Our products facilitate the translation of genomics and proteomics findings to clinical and biological phenotypes. The PSI website can be accessed at http://www.psidev.info.

The 2017 Dagstuhl Seminar on Computational Proteomics provided an opportunity for a broad discussion on the current state and future directions of the generation and use of peptide tandem mass spectrometry spectral libraries. Their use in proteomics is growing slowly, but there are multiple challenges in the field that must be addressed to further increase the adoption of spectral libraries and related techniques. The primary bottlenecks are the paucity of high quality and comprehensive libraries and the general difficulty of adopting spectral library searching into existing workflows. There are several existing spectral library formats, but none capture a satisfactory level of metadata; therefore a logical next improvement is to design a more advanced, Proteomics Standards Initiative-approved spectral library format that can encode all of the desired metadata. The group discussed a series of metadata requirements organized into three designations of completeness or quality, tentatively dubbed bronze, silver, and gold. The metadata can be organized at four different levels of granularity: at the collection (library) level, at the individual entry (peptide ion) level, at the peak (fragment ion) level, and at the peak annotation level. Strategies for encoding mass modifications in a consistent manner and the requirement for encoding high-quality and commonly-seen but as-yet-unidentified spectra were discussed. The group also discussed related topics, including strategies for comparing two spectra, techniques for generating representative spectra for a library, approaches for selection of optimal signature ions for targeted workflows, and issues surrounding the merging of two or more libraries into one. We present here a review of this field and the challenges that the community must address in order to accelerate the adoption of spectral libraries in routine analysis of proteomics datasets.