MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977184198 · doi:10.1002/pmic.200500358

Overview of the HUPO Plasma Proteome Project: Results from the pilot phase with 35 collaborating laboratories and multiple analytical groups, generating a core dataset of 3020 proteins and a publicly‐available database

2005· article· en· W1977184198 on OpenAlexaff
Gilbert S. Omenn, David J. States, Marcin Adamski, Thomas W. Blackwell, Rajasree Menon, Henning Hermjakob, Rolf Apweiler, Brian B. Haab, Richard J. Simpson, James S. Eddes, Eugene A. Kapp, Robert L. Moritz, Daniel W. Chan, Arie Admon, Ruedi Aebersold, Jimmy K. Eng, William S. Hancock, Stanley A. Hefta, Helmut E. Meyer, Young‐Ki Paik, Jong‐Shin Yoo, Peipei Ping, Joel G. Pounds, Joshua Adkins, Xiaohong Qian, Rong Wang, Valerie C. Wasinger, Chi Yue Wu, Xiaohang Zhao, Rong Zeng, Alexander I. Archakov, Akira Tsugita, Ilan Beer, Akhilesh Pandey, Michael Pisano, Philip Andrews, Harald Tammen, David W. Speicher, Samir Hanash

Bibliographic record

VenuePROTEOMICS · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Biological Sciences
FundersU.S. Public Health ServiceNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthMichigan Economic Development CorporationPfizerBristol-Myers SquibbAbbott Laboratories
KeywordsProteomeComputational biologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsDatabaseChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HUPO initiated the Plasma Proteome Project (PPP) in 2002. Its pilot phase has (1) evaluated advantages and limitations of many depletion, fractionation, and MS technology platforms; (2) compared PPP reference specimens of human serum and EDTA, heparin, and citrate-anti-coagulated plasma; and (3) created a publicly-available knowledge base (www.bioinformatics.med.umich.edu/hupo/ppp; www.ebi.ac.uk/pride). Thirty-five participating laboratories in 13 countries submitted datasets. Working groups addressed (a) specimen stability and protein concentrations; (b) protein identifications from 18 MS/MS datasets; (c) independent analyses from raw MS-MS spectra; (d) search engine performance, subproteome analyses, and biological insights; (e) antibody arrays; and (f) direct MS/SELDI analyses. MS-MS datasets had 15 710 different International Protein Index (IPI) protein IDs; our integration algorithm applied to multiple matches of peptide sequences yielded 9504 IPI proteins identified with one or more peptides and 3020 proteins identified with two or more peptides (the Core Dataset). These proteins have been characterized with Gene Ontology, InterPro, Novartis Atlas, OMIM, and immunoassay-based concentration determinations. The database permits examination of many other subsets, such as 1274 proteins identified with three or more peptides. Reverse protein to DNA matching identified proteins for 118 previously unidentified ORFs. We recommend use of plasma instead of serum, with EDTA (or citrate) for anticoagulation. To improve resolution, sensitivity and reproducibility of peptide identifications and protein matches, we recommend combinations of depletion, fractionation, and MS/MS technologies, with explicit criteria for evaluation of spectra, use of search algorithms, and integration of homologous protein matches. This Special Issue of PROTEOMICS presents papers integral to the collaborative analysis plus many reports of supplementary work on various aspects of the PPP workplan. These PPP results on complexity, dynamic range, incomplete sampling, false-positive matches, and integration of diverse datasets for plasma and serum proteins lay a foundation for development and validation of circulating protein biomarkers in health and disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations792
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePROTEOMICSSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207