MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095128346 · doi:10.1021/pr2000495

A Quantitative Proteomic Approach to Prion Disease Biomarker Research: Delving into the Glycoproteome

2011· article· en· W2095128346 on OpenAlexaff
Xin Wei, Allen Herbst, Di Ma, Judd M. Aiken, Lingjun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Proteome Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
KeywordsBiomarker discoveryBiomarkerComputational biologyPrion proteinProteomicsMass spectrometryGlycoproteinLectinDiagnostic biomarkerBiologyChemistryChromatographyDiseaseBiochemistryMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mass spectrometry (MS) -- based proteomic approaches have evolved as powerful tools for the discovery of biomarkers. However, the identification of potential protein biomarkers from biofluid samples is challenging because of the limited dynamic range of detection. Currently there is a lack of sensitive and reliable premortem diagnostic test for prion diseases. Here, we describe the use of a combined MS-based approach for biomarker discovery in prion diseases from mouse plasma samples. To overcome the limited dynamic range of detection and sample complexity of plasma samples, we used lectin affinity chromatography and multidimensional separations to enrich and isolate glycoproteins at low abundance. Relative quantitation of a panel of proteins was obtained by a combination of isotopic labeling and validated by spectral counting. Overall 708 proteins were identified, 53 of which showed more than 2-fold increase in concentration whereas 58 exhibited more than 2-fold decrease. A few of the potential candidate markers were previously associated with prion or other neurodegenerative diseases.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.270
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations29
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Proteome ResearchSame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207