Concentration Determination of >200 Proteins in Dried Blood Spots for Biomarker Discovery and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of protein biomarkers as surrogates for clinical endpoints requires extensive multilevel validation including development of robust and sensitive assays for precise measurement of protein concentration. Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) is a well-established mass-spectrometric method that can be used for reproducible protein-concentration measurements in biological specimens collected via microsampling. The dried blood spot (DBS) microsampling technique can be performed non-invasively without the expertise of a phlebotomist, and can enhance analyte stability which facilitate the application of this technique in retrospective studies while providing lower storage and shipping costs, because cold-chain logistics can be eliminated. Thus, precise, sensitive, and multiplexed methods for measuring protein concentrations in DBSs can be used for de novo biomarker discovery and for biomarker quantification or verification experiments. To achieve this goal, MRM assays were developed for multiplexed concentration measurement of proteins in DBSs. The lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) was found to have a median total coefficient of variation (CV) of 18% for 245 proteins, whereas the median LLOQ was 5 fmol of peptide injected on column, and the median inter-day CV over 4 days for measuring endogenous protein concentration was 8%. The majority (88%) of the assays displayed parallelism, whereas the peptide standards remained stable throughout the assay workflow and after exposure to multiple freeze-thaw cycles. For 190 proteins, the measured protein concentrations remained stable in DBS stored at ambient laboratory temperature for up to 2 months. Finally, the developed assays were used to measure the concentration ranges for 200 proteins in twenty same sex, same race and age matched individuals.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".