Analyzing Protein‐Protein Interactions from Affinity Purification‐Mass Spectrometry Data with SAINT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significance Analysis of INTeractome (SAINT) is a software package for scoring protein-protein interactions based on label-free quantitative proteomics data (e.g., spectral count or intensity) in affinity purification-mass spectrometry (AP-MS) experiments. SAINT allows bench scientists to select bona fide interactions and remove nonspecific interactions in an unbiased manner. However, there is no 'one-size-fits-all' statistical model for every dataset, since the experimental design varies across studies. Key variables include the number of baits, the number of biological replicates per bait, and control purifications. Here we give a detailed account of input data format, control data, selection of high-confidence interactions, and visualization of filtered data. We explain additional options for customizing the statistical model for optimal filtering in specific datasets. We also discuss a graphical user interface of SAINT in connection to the LIMS system ProHits, which can be installed as a virtual machine on Mac OS X or Windows computers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.012 |
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".