Coupling proteomics and transcriptomics in the quest of subtype‐specific proteins in breast cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast-cancer subtypes present with distinct clinical characteristics. Therefore, characterization of subtype-specific proteins may augment the development of targeted therapies and prognostic biomarkers. To address this issue, MS-based secretome analysis of eight breast cancer cell lines, corresponding to the three main breast cancer subtypes was performed. More than 5200 non-redundant proteins were identified with 23, four, and four proteins identified uniquely in basal, HER2-neu-amplified, and luminal breast cancer cells, respectively. An in silico mRNA analysis using publicly available breast cancer tissue microarray data was carried out as a preliminary verification step. In particular, the expression profiles of 15 out of 28 proteins included in the microarray (from a total of 31 in our subtype-specific signature) showed significant correlation with estrogen receptor (ER) expression. A MS-based analysis of breast cancer tissues was undertaken to verify the results at the proteome level. Eighteen out of 31 proteins were quantified in the proteomes of ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancer tissues. Survival analysis using microarray data was performed to examine the prognostic potential of these selected candidates. Three proteins correlated with ER status at both mRNA and protein levels: ABAT, PDZK1, and PTX3, with the former showing significant prognostic potential.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it