MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W43508106

Automated, rapid solid-phase proteolytic cleavage and sample preparation for proteomics.

2002· article· en· W43508106 on OpenAlexaff
Pavel Metalnikov, Paul O'Donnel, Galina Vassilovski, Keith Ashman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSample preparationMass spectrometryChromatographyProteomicsMatrix-assisted laser desorption/ionizationProteolytic enzymesLimitingDigestion (alchemy)ProteomeChemistryComputer scienceDesorptionBiochemistryEnzyme
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of robotic sample preparation systems has allowed the throughput of protein analysis to be accelerated. However, one of the rate-limiting steps in preparing protein samples for analysis by mass spectrometry is their proteolytic cleavage. Robots have been successfully used for the in-gel tryptic digestion of proteins as well as the desalting, concentration, and loading of protein digests onto matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) targets. The advantages of these instruments are fast and stable sample processing and precise spotting. It seems reasonable to use these advantages for the entire protein sample preparation in a single instrument. In this paper,we describe a method to achieve this goal by performing protein sample concentration, all the digestion chemistry steps, and MALDI target loading on Zip-Tips using a rapid and fully automated method.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→