A cost–benefit analysis of multidimensional fractionation of affinity purification‐mass spectrometry samples
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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