The Identification and Characterization of Membranome Components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses of proteins from a number of proteomic studies of cell membranes have demonstrated that a significant component of the identified proteins is not predicted to contain transmembrane regions. The presence of such proteins may arise as a result of contamination of the membrane preparations or through real associations. Our aim was to identify integral proteins as well as those that are intimately associated with the microsomal membranes of K562 cells. Isolated membranes were treated under conditions reported to remove noncovalently associated 'peripheral' proteins and the residual proteins were SDS-PAGE-separated and analyzed by LC-MS/MS. Tandem lectin affinity was also examined as a complementary approach for the enrichment of membrane glycoproteins. Approximately 41% of the isolated proteins were assigned as membrane proteins based on the presence of transmembrane regions or covalent post-translational modifications that could account for membrane association. Collectively, these results indicate that there is a significant component of non integral proteins that appear to be as closely associated with membranes as integral elements.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".