DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE DIFFERENTIAL PROTEOMICS INVESTIGATIONS USING LC-MS TECHNOLOGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based proteomics is becoming an increasingly important tool in characterizing the abundance of proteins in biological samples of various types and across conditions. Effects of disease or drug treatments on protein abundance are of particular interest for the characterization of biological processes and the identification of biomarkers. Although state-of-the-art instrumentation is available to make high-quality measurements and commercially available software is available to process the data, the complexity of the technology and data presents challenges for bioinformaticians and statisticians. Here, we describe a pipeline for the analysis of quantitative LC-MS data. Key components of this pipeline include experimental design (sample pooling, blocking, and randomization) as well as deconvolution and alignment of mass chromatograms to generate a matrix of molecular abundance profiles. An important challenge in LC-MS-based quantitation is to be able to accurately identify and assign abundance measurements to members of protein families. To address this issue, we implement a novel statistical method for inferring the relative abundance of related members of protein families from tryptic peptide intensities. This pipeline has been used to analyze quantitative LC-MS data from multiple biomarker discovery projects. We illustrate our pipeline here with examples from two of these studies, and show that the pipeline constitutes a complete workable framework for LC-MS-based differential quantitation. Supplementary material is available at http://iec01.mie.utoronto.ca/~thodoros/Bukhman/.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".