SAINTq: Scoring protein‐protein interactions in affinity purification – mass spectrometry experiments with fragment or peptide intensity data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SAINT (Significance Analysis of INTeractome) is a probabilistic method for scoring bait-prey interactions against negative controls in affinity purification - mass spectrometry (AP-MS) experiments. Our published SAINT algorithms use spectral counts or protein intensities as the input for calculating the probability of true interaction, which enables objective selection of high-confidence interactions with false discovery control. With the advent of new protein quantification methods such as Data Independent Acquisition (DIA), we redeveloped the scoring method to utilize the reproducibility information embedded in the peptide or fragment intensity data as a key scoring criterion, bypassing protein intensity summarization required in the previous SAINT workflow. The new software package, SAINTq, addresses key issues in the interaction scoring based on intensity data, including treatment of missing values and selection of peptides and fragments for scoring each prey protein. We applied SAINTq to two independent DIA AP-MS data sets profiling the interactome of MEPCE and EIF4A2 and that of 14-3-3β, and benchmarked the performance in terms of recovering previously reported literature interactions in the iRefIndex database. In both data sets, the SAINTq analysis using the fragment-level intensity data led to the most sensitive detection of literature interactions at the same level of specificity. This analysis outperforms the analysis using protein intensity data summed from fragment intensity data that is equivalent to the model in SAINTexpress.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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.
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".