Comparison of protein expression lists from mass spectrometry of human blood fluids using exact peptide sequences versus BLAST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".