Back

mzQC: a versatile way to communicate quality information for biological mass spectrometry

Bielow, C.; Walzer, M.; Hoffmann, N.; Uszkoreit, J.; Mirzadeh Sarcheshmeh, F.; Nicolaus, F.; Andernach, L.; Boschmann, P.; Burla, B.; Dogu, E.; Eisenacher, M.; El Abiead, Y.; Jimenez-Morales, D.; Neumann, S.; Perez-Riverol, Y.; Sachsenberg, T.; M Salek, R.; Strobel, M.; Tenzer, S.; Van Den Bossche, T.; Vitek, O.; Wang, M.; Tabb, D. L.; Bittremieux, W.

2026-10-08 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.10.02.756144 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Reliable quality control (QC) is essential for reproducible biological mass spectrometry, yet QC information is still typically stored in tool-specific, poorly interoperable formats that hinder comparison, reuse, and transparent reporting. We present mzQC, a community-developed standard from the HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative for the compact, machine-readable representation of QC metrics and their associated metadata across mass spectrometry workflows. mzQC is implemented in JSON, organized to support both individual mass spectrometry acquisitions and collections thereof, with formal QC metrics definitions supported by controlled vocabularies to ensure unambiguous metric interpretation and semantic consistency. The format is supported by validation tools and reference libraries in Python, R, and Java, facilitating integration into existing software ecosystems. We demonstrate the utility of mzQC across diverse analytical modalities and QC settings, spanning longitudinal instrument monitoring, acquisition-method evaluation, study-level quality assessment, repository-scale data characterization, and spatially resolved mass spectrometry imaging. Together, these use cases show that mzQC provides not merely a file format, but a shared foundation for interoperable QC reporting, large-scale data assessment, and more rigorous, reproducible, and reusable mass spectrometry-based research.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.