MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2426772027 · doi:10.1007/978-1-60761-780-8_10

Basic Design of MRM Assays for Peptide Quantification

2010· article· en· W2426772027 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew James, Claus Jørgensen

Bibliographic record

VenueMethods in molecular biology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
FundersLundbeckfonden
KeywordsSelected reaction monitoringWorkflowProteomicsChemistryComputational biologyComputer scienceMass spectrometryQuantitative proteomicsNanotechnologyChromatographyTandem mass spectrometryBiologyBiochemistryDatabaseMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the recent availability and accessibility of mass spectrometry for basic and clinical research, the requirement for stable, sensitive, and reproducible assays to specifically detect proteins of interest has increased. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) or selective reaction monitoring (SRM) is a highly selective, sensitive, and robust assay to monitor the presence and amount of biomolecules. Until recently, MRM was typically used for the detection of drugs and other biomolecules from body fluids. With increased focus on biomarkers and systems biology approaches, researchers in the proteomics field have taken advantage of this approach. In this chapter, we will introduce the reader to the basic principle of designing and optimizing an MRM workflow. We provide examples of MRM workflows for standard proteomic samples and provide suggestions for the reader who is interested in using MRM for quantification.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.009

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.382 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethods in molecular biologySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207