MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077293609 · doi:10.1007/s11295-009-0220-2

Spruce proteome DB: a resource for conifer proteomics research

2009· article· en· W2077293609 on OpenAlexafffund
Dustin Lippert, Jörg Bohlmann

Bibliographic record

VenueTree Genetics & Genomes · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyProteomeProteomicsComputational biologyIdentification (biology)DNA sequencingSequence databaseSequence (biology)GenomeProtein sequencingResource (disambiguation)BioinformaticsDNAGeneticsEcologyComputer sciencePeptide sequenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proteomics research is hampered in many organisms due to a lack of an appropriate reference genome sequence that can be used in the interpretation of tandem mass spectrometry data for the identification of proteins. Public DNA sequence repositories have grown to considerable size and can, in most cases, serve to provide at least partial interpretation of a large-scale proteomics dataset. However, when species-specific sequences or sequences from a closely related species are available, a boutique sequence database can provide considerable increases in specificity, confidence, and completeness of protein identification. Here, we describe the development of a protein database from a large-scale expressed sequence tag and full-length complementary DNA sequencing project in the economically and ecologically important spruce ( Picea ) genus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.022

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTree Genetics & GenomesSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207