Proteomics Signature Profiling (PSP): A Novel Contextualization Approach for Cancer Proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditional proteomics analysis is plagued by the use of arbitrary thresholds resulting in large loss of information. We propose here a novel method in proteomics that utilizes all detected proteins. We demonstrate its efficacy in a proteomics screen of 5 and 7 liver cancer patients in the moderate and late stage, respectively. Utilizing biological complexes as a cluster vector, and augmenting it with submodules obtained from partitioning an integrated and cleaned protein-protein interaction network, we calculate a Proteomics Signature Profile (PSP) for each patient based on the hit rates of their reported proteins, in the absence of fold change thresholds, against the cluster vector. Using this, we demonstrated that moderate- and late-stage patients segregate with high confidence. We also discovered a moderate-stage patient who displayed a proteomics profile similar to other poor-stage patients. We identified significant clusters using a modified version of the SNet approach. Comparing our results against the Proteomics Expansion Pipeline (PEP) on which the same patient data was analyzed, we found good correlation. Building on this finding, we report significantly more clusters (176 clusters here compared to 70 in PEP), demonstrating the sensitivity of this approach. Gene Ontology (GO) terms analysis also reveals that the significant clusters are functionally congruent with the liver cancer phenotype. PSP is a powerful and sensitive method for analyzing proteomics profiles even when sample sizes are small. It does not rely on the ratio scores but, rather, whether a protein is detected or not. Although consistency of individual proteins between patients is low, we found the reported proteins tend to hit clusters in a meaningful and informative manner. By extracting this information in the form of a Proteomics Signature Profile, we confirm that this information is conserved and can be used for (1) clustering of patient samples, (2) identification of significant clusters based on real biological complexes, and (3) overcoming consistency and coverage issues prevalent in proteomics data sets.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".