Comparison of a Label-Free Quantitative Proteomic Method Based on Peptide Ion Current Area to the Isotope Coded Affinity Tag Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, several research groups have published methods for the determination of proteomic expression profiling by mass spectrometry without the use of exogenously added stable isotopes or stable isotope dilution theory. These so-called label-free, methods have the advantage of allowing data on each sample to be acquired independently from all other samples to which they can later be compared in silico for the purpose of measuring changes in protein expression between various biological states. We developed label free software based on direct measurement of peptide ion current area (PICA) and compared it to two other methods, a simpler label free method known as spectral counting and the isotope coded affinity tag (ICAT) method. Data analysis by these methods of a standard mixture containing proteins of known, but varying, concentrations showed that they performed similarly with a mean squared error of 0.09. Additionally, complex bacterial protein mixtures spiked with known concentrations of standard proteins were analyzed using the PICA label-free method. These results indicated that the PICA method detected all levels of standard spiked proteins at the 90% confidence level in this complex biological sample. This finding confirms that label-free methods, based on direct measurement of the area under a single ion current trace, performed as well as the standard ICAT method. Given the fact that the label-free methods provide ease in experimental design well beyond pair-wise comparison, label-free methods such as our PICA method are well suited for proteomic expression profiling of large numbers of samples as is needed in clinical 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".