Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of Gingival Crevicular Fluid in Different Periodontal Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To quantify the proteome composition of the GCF in periodontal health (HH) and in sites with different clinical conditions in chronic periodontitis (CP) subjects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 5 subjects with HH and 5 with CP were submitted to full-mouth periodontal examination, and GCF sampling. Sites in the CP group were classified and sampled as periodontitis (P, probing depth, PD>4 mm), gingivitis (G, PD≤3 mm with bleeding on probing, BOP), and healthy sites (H, PD≤3 mm without BOP). GCF proteins were subjected to liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry for identification, characterization and quantification. RESULTS: 230 proteins were identified; 145 proteins were detected in HH, 214 in P, 154 in G, and 133 in H. Four proteins were exclusively detected at HH, 43 proteins at P, 7 proteins at G, and 1 protein at H. Compared to HH group, 35 and 6 proteins were more abundant in P and G (p<0.001), respectively; and 4, 15 and 37 proteins were less abundant in P, G and H (p≤0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There are marked differences in the GCF proteome according to disease profile. Comprehension of the role of the identified proteins in the etiopathogenesis of periodontal disease may lead to biomarkers definition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".