Comparative Proteome Analysis To Study Novel Markers of the Blood Platelet Lesion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Platelet transfusion is a very common live-saving medical procedure for patients with platelet-deficient diseases like leukemia. In contrast to other blood components, the availability of platelets is restricted since they have a limited shelf-life of 5 days for transfusion purposes. This is due to storage-related deterioration in product quality resulting in the clearance from circulation. To overcome this problem, it is important to understand the molecular mechanisms leading to blood platelet lesion during storage. We were using two different proteomic approaches combined with functional biochemistry to investigate time-dependent changes in the blood platelet proteome. One type of analysis consisted of the separation of the platelet proteome at two different time points of storage, day 1 and day 8, using 2-dimensional (2D) gel electrophoresis for qualitative and DIGE technology for quantitative analysis. The identification of proteins changing in spot intensity was carried out by liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. The second method was based on stable isotope labeling with ITRAQ/ICAT reagents in combination with protease treatment, equivalent mixing, separation of the resulting peptides and quantitative analysis by mass spectrometry. Taken together, for the 2D/DIGE approach we analyzed 977 spots corresponding to 103 different proteins and for the ITRAQ approach 1428 peptides corresponding to 355 proteins, resulting in 37 proteins significantly changing both quantitatively due to protein synthesis or degradation and qualitatively due to post-translational modification and enzymatic activity. The high degree of correlation between the two approaches validates the experimental set-up and confirmed the requirement for complementary tools to enhance proteome coverage. Among others, increased amounts of integrins and other proteins known to form receptor signaling complexes with these integrins as well as proteins observed in platelet activation were detected. This proves, for the first time, that there is an apparent link between blood platelet storage lesion and cell signaling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".