Combination of online enzyme digestion with stable isotope labeling for high‐throughput quantitative proteome analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various enzyme reactors and online enzyme digestion strategies have been developed in recent years. These reactors greatly enhanced the detection sensitivity and proteome coverage in qualitative proteomics. However, these devices have higher rates of miscleavage in protein digestion. Therefore, we investigated the effect of online enzyme digestion on the quantification accuracy of quantitative proteomics using chemical or metabolic isotope labeling approaches. The incomplete digestion would introduce some unexpected variations in comparative quantification when the samples are digested and then chemically isotope labeled in different aliquots. Even when identical protein aliquots are processed on these devices using post-digestion chemical isotope labeling and the CVs of the ratios controlled to less than 50% in replicate analyses, about 10% of the quantified proteins have a ratio greater than two-fold, whereas in theory the ratio is 1:1. Interestingly, the incomplete digestion with enzyme reactor is not a problem when metabolic isotope labeling samples were processed because the proteins are isotopically labeled in vivo prior to their simultaneous digestion within the reactor. Our results also demonstrated that both high quantification accuracy and high proteome coverage can be achieved in comparative proteome quantification using online enzyme digestion even when a limited amount of metabolic isotope labeling samples is used (1683 proteins comparatively quantified from 10(5) Hela cells).
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".