Proteoform characterization based on top-down mass spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proteins are dominant executors of living processes. Compared to genetic variations, changes in the molecular structure and state of a protein (i.e. proteoforms) are more directly related to pathological changes in diseases. Characterizing proteoforms involves identifying and locating primary structure alterations (PSAs) in proteoforms, which is of practical importance for the advancement of the medical profession. With the development of mass spectrometry (MS) technology, the characterization of proteoforms based on top-down MS technology has become possible. This type of method is relatively new and faces many challenges. Since the proteoform identification is the most important process in characterizing proteoforms, we comprehensively review the existing proteoform identification methods in this study. Before identifying proteoforms, the spectra need to be preprocessed, and protein sequence databases can be filtered to speed up the identification. Therefore, we also summarize some popular deconvolution algorithms, various filtering algorithms for improving the proteoform identification performance and various scoring methods for localizing proteoforms. Moreover, commonly used methods were evaluated and compared in this review. We believe our review could help researchers better understand the current state of the development in this field and design new efficient algorithms for the proteoform characterization.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".