MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973890894 · doi:10.1021/pr050014+

Mass Spectrometric Peptide Fingerprinting of Proteins after Western Blotting on Polyvinylidene Fluoride and Enhanced Chemiluminescence Detection

2005· article· en· W1973890894 on OpenAlexafffund
Ruth Menque Methogo, Geneviève Dufresne‐Martin, Patrice Leclerc, Richard Leduc, Klaus Klarskov

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVlaamse regering
KeywordsChromatographyChemistryMass spectrometryBlotProteomeProteomicsGel electrophoresisBottom-up proteomicsElectroblottingPolyacrylamide gel electrophoresisPolyvinylidene fluorideTandem mass spectrometryProtein mass spectrometryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The combined use of sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) and mass spectrometry has become a powerful and widely used tool in proteome studies. Following separation by electrophoresis, proteins can be transferred to an inert support such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or nitrocellulose (NC) for the visualization of individual or specific classes of proteins by immunochemical detection methods. We developed a method that allows the mass spectrometric analysis of peptides derived from proteins detected by Western blotting on PVDF. Proteolysis buffer containing either dimethyl formamide (DMF) or Triton X-100 to recover peptides amenable to mass spectrometry was investigated. Although either one can be used, the buffer containing DMF required less sample handling prior to mass spectrometry. The approach was tested using commercially available proteins and serine-phosphorylated proteins from an HEK-293 nuclear extract.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207