A comparison of four proteomics software for hair proteome analyses – A technical note
preprint
OA: closed
Abstract
1.1 Hair 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
My notes (saved in your browser only)
Citation neighborhood (no data yet)
We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.
Source provenance
- europepmc
- last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00