Differential Analysis of Membrane Proteins in Mouse Fore- and Hindbrain Using a Label-Free Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to quantitatively compare protein levels across different regions of the brain to identify disease mechanisms remains a fundamental research challenge. It requires both a robust method to efficiently isolate proteins from small amounts of tissue and a differential technique that provides a sensitive and comprehensive analysis of these proteins. Here, we describe a proteomic approach for the quantitative mapping of membrane proteins between mouse fore- and hindbrain regions. The approach focuses primarily on a recently developed method for the fractionation of membranes and on-membrane protein digestion, but incorporates off-line SCX-fractionation of the peptide mixture and nano-LC-MS/MS analysis using an LTQ-FT-ICR instrument as part of the analytical method. Comparison of mass spectral peak intensities between samples, mapping of peaks to peptides and protein sequences, and statistical analysis were performed using in-house differential analysis software (DAS). In total, 1213 proteins were identified and 967 were quantified; 81% of the identified proteins were known membrane proteins and 38% of the protein sequences were predicted to contain transmembrane helices. Although this paper focuses primarily on characterizing the efficiency of this purification method from a typical sample set, for many of the quantified proteins such as glutamate receptors, GABA receptors, calcium channel subunits, and ATPases, the observed ratios of protein abundance were in good agreement with the known mRNA expression levels and/or intensities of immunostaining in rostral and caudal regions of murine brain. This suggests that the approach would be well-suited for incorporation in more rigorous, larger scale quantitative analysis designed to achieve biological significance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".