MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244904670 · doi:10.1093/jaoac/102.5.1339

Mass Spectrometry-Based Untargeted Proteomics for the Assessment of Food Authenticity: The Case of Farmed Versus Wild-Type Salmon

2019· article· en· W4244904670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giuseppina Maria Fiorino, Marion Fresch, Ina Brümmer, Ilario Losito, Marco Arlorio, Jens Brockmeyer, Linda Monaci

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteomicsMass spectrometryFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyBiotechnologyChromatographyChemistryComputational biologyFood scienceFisheryBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Omics technologies have been widely applied in different fields, among which, proteomics is gaining increasing interest for its application to the authenticity of food products. MS, typically coupled with LC, represents a key technique for proteomics-related studies dedicated to fish and other seafood products by using a bottom-up approach. Objective and Methods: In this paper, the optimization of an untargeted proteomics-based method using LC separation and MS detection relying on a quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer is described and applied to the analysis of Canadian farmed and wild-type salmon, followed by statistical analysis based on principal component (PC) analysis. Results and Conclusions: This untargeted approach, using a data-independent acquisition MS scheme, demonstrated the ability to effectively discriminate salmon belonging to the two classes. Furthermore, selected peptides showing high loadings on PC1 could represent potential candidate peptide markers able to discriminate farmed from wild-type salmon samples in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207