Evaluation of Data-Dependent versus Targeted Shotgun Proteomic Approaches for Monitoring Transcription Factor Expression in Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In breast cancer, there is a significant degree of molecular diversity among tumors. Multiple perturbations in signal transduction pathways impinge on transcriptional networks that in turn dictate malignant transformation and metastatic progression. Detailed knowledge of the sequence-specific transcription factors that become activated or repressed within a tumor and comparison of their relative levels of expression in cancer versus normal tissue should therefore provide insight into disease mechanisms, improving patient stratification and facilitating personalized treatment. While high-throughput tandem mass spectrometry methods for global proteome profiling have been developed, existing approaches have limited sensitivity and are often unable to detect low-abundance transcription factors in a complex biological specimen like a biopsy or tumor cell extract. To this end, we have undertaken a systematic comparative evaluation of three MS/MS methods for the ability to detect reference transcription factors spiked in known amounts into a cell-free breast cancer nuclear extract: Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA), wherein precursor ion intensity dictates selection for fragmentation; Targeted Peptide Monitoring (TPM), a directed approach using successive isolation and fragmentation of predefined m/ z ratios; and Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM), in which specific precursor ion to product ion transitions are selectively monitored. Through a series of controlled, parallel benchmarking experiments, we have determined the relative figures-of-merit of each approach, and have established that prior knowledge of signature proteotypic peptides markedly improves overall detection sensitivity, reliability, and quantification.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".