Modeling Contaminants in AP-MS/MS Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identification of protein-protein interactions (PPI) by affinity purification (AP) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (AP-MS/MS) produces large data sets with high rates of false positives. This is in part because of contamination at the AP level (due to gel contamination, nonspecific binding to the TAP columns in the context of tandem affinity purification, insufficient purification, etc.). In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach to identify false-positive PPIs involving contaminants in AP-MS/MS experiments. Specifically, we propose a confidence assessment algorithm (called Decontaminator) that builds a model of contaminants using a small number of representative control experiments. It then uses this model to determine whether the Mascot score of a putative prey is significantly larger than what was observed in control experiments and assigns it a p-value and a false discovery rate. We show that our method identifies contaminants better than previously used approaches and results in a set of PPIs with a larger overlap with databases of known PPIs. Our approach will thus allow improved accuracy in PPI identification while reducing the number of control experiments required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".