MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050787616 · doi:10.1016/j.jasms.2004.11.014

ZoomQuant: An application for the quantitation of stable isotope labeled peptides

2005· article· en· W2050787616 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian Halligan, Ronit Y. Slyper, Simon Twigger, Wayne A. Hicks, Michael Olivier, Andrew S. Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
KeywordsChemistryMass spectrometryPeptideIsobaric labelingQuantitative proteomicsIsotopeIsotopic labelingAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyIon trapAbundance (ecology)Resolution (logic)Mass spectrumNatural abundanceTandem mass spectrometryProteomicsBiological systemProtein mass spectrometryBiochemistryArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of comparative proteomics is the quantitation of the differences in abundance of many proteins between two different biological samples in a single experiment. By differentially labeling the peptides from the two samples and combining them in a single analysis, relative ratios of protein abundance can be accurately determined. Protease catalyzed (18)O exchange is a simple method to differentially label peptides, but the lack of robust software tools to analyze the data from mass spectra of (18)O labeled peptides generated by common ion trap mass spectrometers has been a limitation. ZoomQuant is a stand-alone computational tool that analyzes the mass spectra of (18)O labeled peptides from ion trap instruments and determines relative abundance ratios between two samples. Starting with a filtered list of candidate peptides that have been successfully identified by Sequest, ZoomQuant analyzes the isotopic forms of the peptides using high-resolution zoom scan spectrum data. The theoretical isotope distribution is determined from the peptide sequence and is used to deconvolute the peak areas associated with the unlabeled, partially labeled, and fully labeled species. The ratio between the labeled and unlabeled peptides is then calculated using several different methods. ZoomQuant's graphical user interface allows the user to view and adjust the parameters for peak calling and quantitation and select which peptides should contribute to the overall abundance ratio calculation. Finally, ZoomQuant generates a summary report of the relative abundance of the peptides identified in the two samples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations71
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society for Mass SpectrometrySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207