High‐coverage quantitative proteomics using amine‐specific isotopic labeling
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
Peptide dimethylation with isotopically coded formaldehydes was evaluated as a potential alternative to techniques such as the iTRAQ method for comparative proteomics. The isotopic labeling strategy and custom-designed protein quantitation software were tested using protein standards and then applied to measure proteins levels associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). The method provided high accuracy (10% error), precision (14% RSD) and coverage (70%) when applied to the analysis of a standard solution of BSA by LC-MS/MS. The technique was then applied to measure protein abundance levels in brain tissue afflicted with AD relative to normal brain tissue. 2-D LC-MS analysis identified 548 unique proteins (p<0.05). Of these, 349 were quantified with two or more peptides that met the statistical criteria used in this study. Several classes of proteins exhibited significant changes in abundance. For example, elevated levels of antioxidant proteins and decreased levels of mitochondrial electron transport proteins were observed. The results demonstrate the utility of the labeling method for high-throughput quantitative analysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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