The application of multiple reaction monitoring and multi-analyte profiling to HDL proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: HDL carries a rich protein cargo and examining HDL protein composition promises to improve our understanding of its functions. Conventional mass spectrometry methods can be lengthy and difficult to extend to large populations. In addition, without prior enrichment of the sample, the ability of these methods to detect low abundance proteins is limited. Our objective was to develop a high-throughput approach to examine HDL protein composition applicable to diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: We optimized two multiplexed assays to examine HDL proteins using a quantitative immunoassay (Multi-Analyte Profiling- MAP) and mass spectrometric-based quantitative proteomics (Multiple Reaction Monitoring-MRM). We screened HDL proteins using human xMAP (90 protein panel) and MRM (56 protein panel). We extended the application of these two methods to HDL isolated from a group of participants with diabetes and prior cardiovascular events and a group of non-diabetic controls. RESULTS: We were able to quantitate 69 HDL proteins using MAP and 32 proteins using MRM. For several common proteins, the use of MRM and MAP was highly correlated (p < 0.01). Using MAP, several low abundance proteins implicated in atherosclerosis and inflammation were found on HDL. On the other hand, MRM allowed the examination of several HDL proteins not available by MAP. CONCLUSIONS: MAP and MRM offer a sensitive and high-throughput approach to examine changes in HDL proteins in diabetes and CVD. This approach can be used to measure the presented HDL proteins in large clinical studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".