MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127896250 · doi:10.1586/epr.09.97

Isolation of cell surface proteins for mass spectrometry-based proteomics

2010· article· en· W2127896250 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Elschenbroich, Yunee Kim, Jeffrey A. Medin, Thomas Kislinger

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Proteomics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProteomeBiotinylationProteomicsCellGlycoproteinChemistryUltracentrifugeMass spectrometryBiomoleculeCell membraneComputational biologyChromatographyNanotechnologyCell biologyBiochemistryBiologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defining the cell surface proteome has profound importance for understanding cell differentiation and cell-cell interactions, as well as numerous pathogenic abnormalities. Owing to their hydrophobic nature, plasma membrane proteins that reside on the cell surface pose analytical challenges and, despite efforts to overcome difficulties, remain under-represented in proteomic studies. Limitations in the classically employed ultracentrifugation-based approaches have led to the invention of more elaborate techniques for the purification of cell surface proteins. Three of these methods--cell surface coating with cationic colloidal silica beads, biotinylation and chemical capture of surface glycoproteins--allow for marked enrichment of this subcellular proteome, with each approach offering unique advantages and characteristics for different experiments. In this article, we introduce the principles of each purification method and discuss applications from the recent literature.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

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

Citations104
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of ProteomicsSame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207