Recent advances in top‐down proteome sample processing ahead of MS analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Top-down proteomics is emerging as a preferred approach to investigate biological systems, with objectives ranging from the detailed assessment of a single protein therapeutic, to the complete characterization of every possible protein including their modifications, which define the human proteoform. Given the controlling influence of protein modifications on their biological function, understanding how gene products manifest or respond to disease is most precisely achieved by characterization at the intact protein level. Top-down mass spectrometry (MS) analysis of proteins entails unique challenges associated with processing whole proteins while maintaining their integrity throughout the processes of extraction, enrichment, purification, and fractionation. Recent advances in each of these critical front-end preparation processes, including minimalistic workflows, have greatly expanded the capacity of MS for top-down proteome analysis. Acknowledging the many contributions in MS technology and sample processing, the present review aims to highlight the diverse strategies that have forged a pathway for top-down proteomics. We comprehensively discuss the evolution of front-end workflows that today facilitate optimal characterization of proteoform-driven biology, including a brief description of the clinical applications that have motivated these impactful contributions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".