HFIP Extraction Followed by 2D CTAB/SDS-PAGE Separation: A New Methodology for Protein Identification from Tissue Sections after MALDI Mass Spectrometry Profiling for Personalized Medicine Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization mass spectrometry imaging (MALDI-MSI) and profiling technology have become the easiest methods for quickly accessing the protein composition of a tissue area. Unfortunately, the demand for the identification of these proteins remains unmet. To overcome this bottleneck, we combined several strategies to identify the proteins detected via MALDI profiling including on-tissue protein extraction using hexafluoroIsopropanol (1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoro-2-propanol, HFIP) coupled with two-dimensional cetyl trimethylammonium bromide/sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (2D CTAB/SDS-PAGE) for separation followed by trypsin digestion and MALDI-MS analyses for identification. This strategy was compared with an on-tissue bottom-up strategy that we previously developed. The data reflect the complementarity of the approaches. An increase in the number of specific proteins identified has been established. This approach demonstrates the potential of adapted extraction procedures and the combination of parallel identification approaches for personalized medicine applications. The anatomical context provides important insight into identifying biomarkers and may be considered a first step for tissue-based biomarker research, as well as the extemporaneous examination of biopsies during surgery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".