MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W111275185 · doi:10.1385/1-59745-275-0:209

Quantitative Proteomics by Stable Isotope Labeling and Mass Spectrometry

2006· article· en· W111275185 on OpenAlex
Sheng Pan, Ruedi Aebersold

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsStable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell cultureMass spectrometryQuantitative proteomicsTandem mass tagChemistryProteomicsAnalyteStable isotope ratioIsotopeIsobaric labelingTandem mass spectrometryChromatographyIsotopic labelingProtein mass spectrometryComputational biologyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)BiochemistryBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of quantitative proteomics is to systematically study static state or perturbation-induced changes in protein profile. Most of the recently developed mass spectrometry (MS)-based quantitative proteomic methods employ stable isotope labeling to introduce signature mass tags to peptides/proteins that can be used by a mass spectrometer to quantify each analyte and to determine the sample from which it originates. In this chapter, we discuss several methods for the introduction of mass tags to proteins and peptides for MS-based quantitative proteomic analysis, including isotope-coded affinity tags, stable isotope labeling by amino acids in cell culture, global internal standard technology, and mass-coded abundance tagging.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it