Proteomic Profiling of the Human Tissue and Biological Fluid Proteome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In-depth analysis of the human genome sequence has led to the annotation of approximately 20,000 human protein-coding genes. Although mass spectrometry (MS)-based workflows have made a great headway in achieving near genome-wide coverage, an equivalent complete map of the human proteome remains elusive. Delineating the spatial distribution of all human proteins at the organ, tissue, and cellular level can offer insight into health and disease and represents an excellent reference for the discovery of biomarkers and therapeutic targets. Here, we performed label-free liquid chromatography coupled to tandem MS (LC-MS/MS) to profile the normal human proteome. In total, we analyzed 117 samples from 46 normal tissues and organs at autopsy. Our high-resolution MS approach allowed for the quantification of 10,438 unique proteins. In order to expand our coverage of the human proteome, we combined our previously published biological fluid proteomic data from healthy individuals. We considered data from seven biological fluids, including urine, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, seminal plasma, sweat, cervical vaginal fluid, and nipple aspirate fluid. Overall, we generated tandem mass spectra corresponding to 13,028 unique human protein-coding genes. Although our analysis did not accomplish complete proteome coverage, it should be an important complementary resource for future biomarker discovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".