Ensembles of protein termini and specific proteolytic signatures as candidate biomarkers of disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment are essential in order to treat complex or fatal diseases such as cancer and autoimmune, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases. To realize this vision, new diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers are urgently required. MS-based proteomics is the most promising approach for protein biomarker identification, but suffers in clinical translation of biomarker candidates that show only quantitative differences from normal tissue. Indeed, success in translating proteomic data to biomarkers in the clinic has been disappointing. Here, we propose that protein termini provide a new opportunity for biomarker discovery due to qualitative differences in intact and new protein termini between diseased and normal tissues. Altered proteolysis occurs in most pathologies. Disease- and process-specific protein modifications, including proteolytic processing and subsequent modification of the terminal amino acids, frequently lead to altered protein activity that plays key roles in the disease process. Thus, mapping of ensembles of characteristic protein termini provides a proteolytic signature of high information content that shows both quantitative and most importantly qualitative differences in different diseases and stage of disease. These unique protein biomarkers have the added benefit of being mechanistically informative by revealing the activity state of the bioactive protein. Moreover, proteome-wide isolation of protein termini leads to generalized sample simplification, thereby enabling up to three orders of magnitude lower LODs compared to traditional shotgun proteomic approaches. We introduce the potential of protein termini for biomarker discovery, briefly review methods enabling large-scale studies of protein termini, and discuss how these may be integrated into a termini-oriented biomarker discovery pipeline from discovery to clinical application.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".