Highly Reproducible Label Free Quantitative Proteomic Analysis of RNA Polymerase Complexes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of quantitative proteomics methods to study protein complexes has the potential to provide in-depth information on the abundance of different protein components as well as their modification state in various cellular conditions. To interrogate protein complex quantitation using shotgun proteomic methods, we have focused on the analysis of protein complexes using label-free multidimensional protein identification technology and studied the reproducibility of biological replicates. For these studies, we focused on three highly related and essential multi-protein enzymes, RNA polymerase I, II, and III from Saccharomyces cerevisiae. We found that label-free quantitation using spectral counting is highly reproducible at the protein and peptide level when analyzing RNA polymerase I, II, and III. In addition, we show that peptide sampling does not follow a random sampling model, and we show the need for advanced computational models to predict peptide detection probabilities. In order to address these issues, we used the APEX protocol to model the expected peptide detectability based on whole cell lysate acquired using the same multidimensional protein identification technology analysis used for the protein complexes. Neither method was able to predict the peptide sampling levels that we observed using replicate multidimensional protein identification technology analyses. In addition to the analysis of the RNA polymerase complexes, our analysis provides quantitative information about several RNAP associated proteins including the RNAPII elongation factor complexes DSIF and TFIIF. Our data shows that DSIF and TFIIF are the most highly enriched RNAP accessory factors in Rpb3-TAP purifications and demonstrate our ability to measure low level associated protein abundance across biological replicates. In addition, our quantitative data supports a model in which DSIF and TFIIF interact with RNAPII in a dynamic fashion in agreement with previously published reports.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".