iTRAQ-based quantitative tissue proteomic analysis of differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in non-transgenic and transgenic soybean seeds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unintended effects of transgenesis have increased food safety concerns, meriting comprehensive evaluation. Proteomic profiling provides an approach to directly assess the unintended effects. Herein, the isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantitation (iTRAQ) comparative proteomic approach was employed to evaluate proteomic profile differences in seed cotyledons from 4 genetically modified (GM) and 3 natural genotypic soybean lines. Compared with their non-GM parents, there were 67, 61, 13 and 22 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) in MON87705, MON87701 × MON89788, MON87708, and FG72. Overall, 170 DEPs were identified in the 3 GM soybean lines with the same parents, but 232 DEPs were identified in the 3 natural soybean lines. Thus, the differences in protein expression among the genotypic varieties were greater than those caused by GM. When considering ≥2 replicates, 4 common DEPs (cDEPs) were identified in the 3 different GM soybean lines with the same parents and 6 cDEPs were identified in the 3 natural varieties. However, when considering 3 replicates, no cDEPs were identified. Regardless of whether ≥2 or 3 replicates were considered, no cDEPs were identified among the 4 GM soybean lines. Therefore, no feedback due to GM was observed at the common protein level in this study.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it