Visualisation and analysis of proteomic data from the procyclic form of <b> <i>Trypanosoma brucei</i> </b>
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
We have undertaken a large scale study of the proteins expressed in the procyclic form of the parasite Trypanosoma brucei, which causes African sleeping sickness, using 2-DE and MS. The complete data set encompasses over 2000 identifications, of which 770 are distinct proteins. We have discovered that multiple protein isoforms appear to be common in T. brucei, as most proteins have been matched to more than one gel spot. We have developed visualisation software to investigate the differences between isoforms, based on the information from the results of database searches with MS data. We are able to highlight instances where PTMs are the most likely cause of variant forms. In other cases, spots that appear reproducibly across replicates contain fragments of proteins, arising either as experimental artefacts or as part of protein degradation. We are also able to classify clusters of gel spots into different groups based on the pattern of peptides that have been matched from MS data. The entire data set is stored within a relational database system that allows complex queries ( http://www.gla.ac.uk/functionalgenomics). Using specific proteins as examples, we demonstrate how the visualisation software and the database query facilities can be 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) | 0.000 | 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