Classification of Collagens via peptide ambiguation, in a paleoproteomic LC-MS/MS-based taxonomic pipeline

Abstract N°

Review committee

Sélectionnez le(s) utilisateur(s) chargé(s) de la revue de cet abstract.

Communication type

Speaker abstract
Oral presentation
Flash communication
Poster

Communication status

Accepted
Rejected

Final abstract N°

Note globale

Abstract theme *

The Scientific Committee may redirect an abstract to a theme it considers more appropriate, or even to a new theme not yet listed.

Abstract content *

Max 2000 characters. Line breaks are supported.

LC-MS/MS extends the MALDI-TOF ZooMS ‘mass fingerprinting’ approach to species identification by providing fragmentation spectra for each peptide. However, ancient bone samples generate sparse data containing only a few collagen proteins, rendering target-decoy strategies unusable and increasing uncertainty in peptide annotation. To ameliorate this issue, we present a ZooMS/MS data pipeline that builds on a manually curated Collagen database and comprises two novel algorithms: isoBLAST and ClassiCOL. isoBLAST first extends peptide ambiguity by generating all ‘potential peptide candidates’ isobaric to the annotated precursor. The exhaustive set of candidates created is then used to retain or reject different potential paths at each taxonomic branching point from superkingdom to species, until the greatest possible specificity is reached. Uniquely, ClassiCOL allows for the identification of taxonomic mixtures, including contaminated samples, as well as suggesting taxonomies not represented in sequence databases, including extinct taxa. All considered ambiguity is then graphically represented with clear prioritization of the potential taxa in the sample. Using public as well as in-house data acquired on different instruments, we demonstrate the performance of this universal postprocessing and explore the identification of both genetic and sample mixtures. Diet reconstruction from 40,000-year-old cave hyena coprolites illustrates the exciting potential of this approach.

Author(s) informations *

1	First name * Last name * email * Presenting author * At least and only one presenting author must be selected per abstract Presenting author Do you want this email to appear in the book of abstracts? If you refuse, only the administrators and the review commitee will have access to this email as part of the review process. YesNo Laboratory * Address * ZIP code * City * Country *
1	First name * Last name * email * Presenting author * At least and only one presenting author must be selected per abstract Presenting author Do you want this email to appear in the book of abstracts? If you refuse, only the administrators and the review commitee will have access to this email as part of the review process. YesNo Laboratory * Address * ZIP code * City * Country *

Add another author

Are you an ECR? *

<7 years after last degree

Yes
No

Are you a Junior PI? *

If you have started your own group less than 3 years ago and are not chosen by the scientific committee for a talk, you will have the opportunity to give a keynote during an ECR parallel session

Yes
No

Are you an invited speaker? *

Yes
No

Consent *

By submitting this form I agree
- that the administrators use my personal information for the abstract revision process.
- that my name, affiliation and abstract content may be publicly displayed.

Captcha

Validate Email