The plasma peptides of ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It may be possible to discover new diagnostic or therapeutic peptides or proteins from blood plasma by using liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry to identify, quantify and compare the peptides cleaved ex vivo from different clinical populations. The endogenous tryptic peptides of ovarian cancer plasma were compared to breast cancer and female cancer normal controls, other diseases with their matched or normal controls, plus ice cold plasma to control for pre-analytical variation. The endogenous tryptic peptides or tryptic phospho peptides (i.e. without exogenous digestion) were analyzed from 200 μl of EDTA plasma. The plasma peptides were extracted by a step gradient of organic/water with differential centrifugation, dried, and collected over C18 for analytical HPLC nano electrospray ionization and tandem mass spectrometry (LC–ESI–MS/MS) with a linear quadrupole ion trap. The endogenous peptides of ovarian cancer were compared to multiple disease and normal samples from different institutions alongside ice cold controls. Peptides were randomly and independently sampled by LC–ESI–MS/MS. Precursor ions from peptides > E4 counts were identified by the SEQUEST and X!TANDEM algorithms, filtered in SQL Server, before testing of frequency counts by Chi Square (χ 2 ), for analysis with the STRING algorithm, and comparison of precursor intensity by ANOVA in the R statistical system with the Tukey-Kramer Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. Peptides and/or phosphopeptides of common plasma proteins such as HPR, HP, HPX, and SERPINA1 showed increased observation frequency and/or precursor intensity in ovarian cancer. Many cellular proteins showed large changes in frequency by Chi Square (χ 2 > 60, p < 0.0001) in the ovarian cancer samples such as ZNF91, ZNF254, F13A1, LOC102723511, ZNF253, QSER1, P4HA1, GPC6, LMNB2, PYGB, NBR1, CCNI2, LOC101930455, TRPM5, IGSF1, ITGB1, CHD6, SIRT1, NEFM, SKOR2, SUPT20HL1, PLCE1, CCDC148, CPSF3, MORN3, NMI, XTP11, LOC101927572, SMC5, SEMA6B, LOXL3, SEZ6L2, and DHCR24. The protein gene symbols with large Chi Square values were significantly enriched in proteins that showed a complex set of previously established functional and structural relationships by STRING analysis. Analysis of the frequently observed proteins by ANOVA confirmed increases in mean precursor intensity in ZFN91, TRPM5, SIRT1, CHD6, RIMS1, LOC101930455 (XP_005275896), CCDC37 and GIMAP4 between ovarian cancer versus normal female and other diseases or controls by the Tukey–Kramer HSD test. Here we show that separation of endogenous peptides with a step gradient of organic/water and differential centrifugation followed by random and independent sampling by LC–ESI–MS/MS with analysis of peptide frequency and intensity by SQL Server and R revealed significant difference in the ex vivo cleavage of peptides between ovarian cancer and other clinical treatments. There was striking agreement between the proteins discovered from cancer plasma versus previous biomarkers discovered in tumors by genetic or biochemical methods. The results indicate that variation in plasma proteins from ovarian cancer may be directly discovered by LC–ESI–MS/MS that will be a powerful tool for clinical research.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".