A Routine ‘Top-Down’ Approach to Analysis of the Human Serum Proteome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Serum provides a rich source of potential biomarker proteoforms. One of the major obstacles in analysing serum proteomes is detecting lower abundance proteins owing to the presence of hyper-abundant species (e.g., serum albumin and immunoglobulins). Although depletion methods have been used to address this, these can lead to the concomitant removal of non-targeted protein species, and thus raise issues of specificity, reproducibility, and the capacity for meaningful quantitative analyses. Altering the native stoichiometry of the proteome components may thus yield a more complex series of issues than dealing directly with the inherent complexity of the sample. Hence, here we targeted method refinements so as to ensure optimum resolution of serum proteomes via a top down two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2DE) approach that enables the routine assessment of proteoforms and is fully compatible with subsequent mass spectrometric analyses. Testing included various fractionation and non-fractionation approaches. The data show that resolving 500 µg protein on 17 cm 3-10 non-linear immobilised pH gradient strips in the first dimension followed by second dimension resolution on 7-20% gradient gels with a combination of lithium dodecyl sulfate (LDS) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) detergents markedly improves the resolution and detection of proteoforms in serum. In addition, well established third dimension electrophoretic separations in combination with deep imaging further contributed to the best available resolution, detection, and thus quantitative top-down analysis of serum proteomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".