Back

A comparison of four proteomics software for hair proteome analyses

Mukonyora, M.

2026-04-20 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.04.17.719199 bioRxiv
Show abstract

1.1Hair has applications in biomarker discovery and forensics, yet the influence of proteomics software tools on hair proteome characterisation remains underexplored. This study compares four bottom-up proteomics workflows (MaxQuant, FragPipe, MetaMorpheus, and SearchGUI/PeptideShaker). Publicly available hair proteomes were analysed following extraction with 1-dodecyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride (DMC), sodium dodecanoate (SDD), sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS), and urea. Data were acquired on Orbitrap-based DDA platforms. Peptide identification, protein inference, functional annotation, physicochemical properties, and label-free quantification (LFQ) were evaluated. Peptide-level performance differed across tools. MS-GF+ and FragPipe identified the most unique peptides, while X!Tandem reported the fewest. Protein inference showed a dissociation from peptide-level results. MetaMorpheus reported the highest number of protein groups despite only the third highest peptide counts. FragPipe and MaxQuant followed, while PeptideShaker consistently inferred the fewest proteins. Protein-level concordance was low, with only 30.3% overlap across tools and extraction methods. These differences extended to downstream analyses. Functional enrichment showed moderate concordance (38.25% overlap). Physicochemical profiles varied, with MetaMorpheus identifying more hydrophobic proteomes and PeptideShaker more hydrophilic profiles. At the quantitative level, reproducibility depended on extraction buffer. SDS and urea showed lower variability (CV =< 0.025), while DMC and SDD showed higher variability (up to 0.10). Absolute LFQ intensities and differential expression outputs varied across tools despite moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.77 to 0.93). Overall, software choice influences proteome coverage, physicochemical profiles, and quantitative outcomes. Relative trends were partially conserved, but magnitude and significance varied. These findings support careful method selection and multi-tool validation in hair proteomics

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Proteome Research
215 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.6%
2
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
158 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.9%
3
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 23%
7.5%
4
PROTEOMICS
35 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Proteomics
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.1%
6
Analytical Chemistry
205 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.2%
7
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.8%
8
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.9%
10
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.8%
11
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.6%
12
Analytica Chimica Acta
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
13
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
14
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
15
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
16
Food Chemistry
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
17
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
18
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
19
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 15%
0.8%
21
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Biology
43 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
23
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
24
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%
25
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.5%