MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158767154 · doi:10.1039/c4an01582g

Relative quantification of amine-containing metabolites using isobaric N,N-dimethyl leucine (DiLeu) reagents via LC-ESI-MS/MS and CE-ESI-MS/MS

2014· article· en· W2158767154 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ling Hao, Xuefei Zhong, Tyler Greer, Hui Ye, Lingjun Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Analyst · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsIsobaric processChemistryAmine gas treatingChromatographyReagentLeucineAmino acidOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS)-based relative quantification by isobaric labeling is a useful technique to compare different metabolic expression levels in biological systems. For the first time, we have labeled primary and secondary amine-containing small molecules using 4-plex isobaric N,N-dimethyl leucine (DiLeu) to perform relative quantification. Good labeling efficiency and quantification accuracy were demonstrated with a mixture of 12 metabolite standards including amino acids and small molecule neurotransmitters. Labeling amine-containing metabolites with DiLeu reagents also enabled the separation of polar metabolites by nanoRPLC and improved the detection sensitivity by CE-ESI-MS. The 4-plex DiLeu labeling technique combined with LC-MS/MS and CE-MS/MS platforms were applied to profile and quantify amine-containing metabolites in mouse urine. The variability of concentrations of identified metabolites in urine samples from different mouse individuals was illustrated by the ratios of reporter ion intensities acquired from online data-dependent 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations58
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AnalystSame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207