MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000146915 · doi:10.1021/pr060312m

The Proteomic Reactor:  A Microfluidic Device for Processing Minute Amounts of Protein Prior to Mass Spectrometry Analysis

2006· article· en· W2000146915 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin Ethier, Weimin Hou, Henry S. Duewel, Daniel Figeys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMass spectrometryProteomicsProteomeChromatographyChemistryLysisMicrofluidicsFractionationPeptideTandem mass spectrometryBiochemistryNanotechnologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gel-free proteomics has emerged as a complement to conventional gel-based proteomics. Gel-free approaches focus on peptide or protein fractionation, but they do not address the efficiency of protein processing. We report the development of a microfluidic proteomic reactor that greatly simplifies the processing of complex proteomic samples by combining multiple proteomic steps. Rapid extraction and enrichment of proteins from complex proteomic samples or directly from cells are readily performed on the reactor. Furthermore, chemical and enzymatic treatments of proteins are performed in 50 nL effective volume, which results in an increased number of generated peptides. The products are compatible with mass spectrometry. We demonstrated that the proteomic reactor is at least 10 times more sensitive than current gel-free methodologies with one protein identified per 440 pg of protein lysate injected on the reactor. Furthermore, as little as 300 cells can be directly introduced on the proteomic reactor and analyzed by mass spectrometry.

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)0.003
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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations86
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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