A cost–benefit analysis of multidimensional fractionation of affinity purification‐mass spectrometry samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry (AP-MS) is gaining widespread use for the identification of protein-protein interactions. It is unclear, however, whether typical AP sample complexity is limiting for the identification of all protein components using standard one-dimensional LC-MS/MS. Multidimensional sample separation is useful for reducing sample complexity prior to MS analysis and increases peptide and protein coverage of complex samples. Here, we monitored the effects of upstream protein or peptide separation techniques on typical mammalian AP-MS samples, generated by FLAG affinity purification of four baits with different biological functions and/or subcellular distribution. As a first separation step, we employed SDS-PAGE, strong cation exchange LC, or reversed-phase LC at basic pH. We also analyzed the benefits of using an instrument with a faster scan rate, the new TripleTOF 5600 mass spectrometer. While all multidimensional approaches yielded a clear increase in spectral counts, the increase in unique peptides and additional protein identification was modest and came at the cost of increased instrument and handling time. The use of a high duty-cycle instrument achieved similar benefits without these drawbacks. An increase in spectral counts is beneficial when data analysis methods relying on spectral counts, including Significance Analysis of INTeractome (SAINT), are used.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".