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 OpenAlexfundno aff
Sheng Pan, Ruedi Aebersold

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207