MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035124181 · doi:10.1021/ac026127j

Abundance Ratio-Dependent Proteomic Analysis by Mass Spectrometry

2003· article· en· W2035124181 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Timothy J. Griffin, Chris M. Lock, Xiaojun Li, Alpesh Patel, Iryna Chervetsova, Hookeun Lee, Michael E. Wright, Jeffrey A. Ranish, Sharon S. Chen, Ruedi Aebersold

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsChemistryProteomicsMass spectrometryQuantitative proteomicsTandem mass spectrometryTandem mass tagChromatographyComputational biologyBottom-up proteomicsIsobaric labelingProtein mass spectrometryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of quantitative proteomics is to determine the identity and relative quantity of each protein present in two or more complex protein samples. Here we describe a novel approach to quantitative proteomics. It is based on a highly accurate algorithm for the automated quantification of chromatographically fractionated, isotope-coded affinity-tagged peptides and MALDI quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry for their identification. The method is capable of detecting and selectively identifying those proteins within a complex mixture that show a difference in relative abundance. We demonstrate the effectiveness and the versatility of this approach in the analysis of a standard protein mixture, protein expression profiling in a human prostate cancer cell line model, and identification of the specific components of the multiprotein transcriptional machinery in S. cerevisiae.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

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

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207