Label-free quantitative proteomics trends for protein–protein interactions
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
Understanding protein interactions within the complexity of a living cell is challenging, but techniques coupling affinity purification and mass spectrometry have enabled important progress to be made in the past 15 years. As identification of protein-protein interactions is becoming easier, the quantification of the interaction dynamics is the next frontier. Several quantitative mass spectrometric approaches have been developed to address this issue that vary in their strengths and weaknesses. While isotopic labeling approaches continue to contribute to the identification of regulated interactions, techniques that do not require labeling are becoming increasingly used in the field. Here, we describe the major types of label-free quantification used in interaction proteomics, and discuss the relative merits of data dependent and data independent acquisition approaches in label-free quantification. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: From protein structures to clinical applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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