MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2193229373 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.11.048

Quantification of Protein Levels in Single Living Cells

2015· article· en· W2193229373 on OpenAlexaff
Chiu‐An Lo, Ibrahim Kays, Farida Emran, Tsung-Jung Lin, Vedrana Cvetkovska, Brian E. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypeGeneTranslation (biology)Protein subcellular localization predictionGreen fluorescent proteinEndogenyComputational biologyMolecular biologyMessenger RNAGeneticsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate measurement of the amount of specific protein a cell produces is important for investigating basic molecular processes. We have developed a technique that allows for quantitation of protein levels in single cells in vivo. This protein quantitation ratioing (PQR) technique uses a genetic tag that produces a stoichiometric ratio of a fluorescent protein reporter and the protein of interest during protein translation. The fluorescence intensity is proportional to the number of molecules produced of the protein of interest and is used to determine the relative amount of protein within the cell. We use PQR to quantify protein expression of different genes using quantitative imaging, electrophysiology, and phenotype. We use genome editing to insert Protein Quantitation Reporters into endogenous genomic loci in three different genomes for quantitation of endogenous protein levels. The PQR technique will allow for a wide range of quantitative experiments examining gene-to-phenotype relationships with greater accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations109
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207