MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072436950 · doi:10.1007/bf02752500

Comparison of protein expression lists from mass spectrometry of human blood fluids using exact peptide sequences versus BLAST

2006· article· en· W2072436950 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Proteomics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsAlpha Cancer TechnologiesToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsRefSeqSequence databasePeptideProteomicsPeptide mass fingerprintingHuman bloodTandem mass spectrometryDatabase search engineMass spectrometryPeptide sequenceHuman proteinsTandem mass tagSequence (biology)BiologyHuman genomeComputational biologyProtein sequencingBottom-up proteomicsGeneChemistryBiochemistryProtein mass spectrometryQuantitative proteomicsGenomeChromatographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The proteins in blood were all first expressed as mRNAs from genes within cells. There are databases of human proteins that are known to be expressed as mRNA in human cells and tissues. Proteins identified from human blood by the correlation of mass spectra that fail to match human mRNA expression products may not be correct. We compared the proteins identified in human blood by mass spectrometry by 10 different groups by correlation to human and nonhuman nucleic acid sequences. We determined whether the peptides or proteins identified by the different groups mapped to the human known proteins of the Reference Sequence (RefSeq) database. We used Structured Query Language data base searches of the peptide sequences correlated to tandem mass spectrometry spectra and basic local alignment search tool analysis of the identified full length proteins to control for correlation to the wrong peptide sequence or the existence of the same or very similar peptide sequence shared by more than one protein. Mass spectra were correlated against large protein data bases that contain many sequences that may not be expressed in human beings yet the search returned a very high percentage of peptides or proteins that are known to be found in humans. Only about 5% of proteins mapped to hypothetical sequences, which is in agreement with the reported false-positive rate of searching algorithms conditions. The results were highly enriched in secreted and soluble proteins and diminished in insoluble or membrane proteins. Most of the proteins identified were relatively short and showed a similar size distribution compared to the RefSeq database. At least three groups agree on a nonredundant set of 1671 types of proteins and a nonredundant set of 3151 proteins were identified by at least three peptides.

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 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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.331 · 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