Global detection of human variants and isoforms by deep proteome sequencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An average shotgun proteomics experiment detects approximately 10,000 human proteins from a single sample. However, individual proteins are typically identified by peptide sequences representing a small fraction of their total amino acids. Hence, an average shotgun experiment fails to distinguish different protein variants and isoforms. Deeper proteome sequencing is therefore required for the global discovery of protein isoforms. Using six different human cell lines, six proteases, deep fractionation and three tandem mass spectrometry fragmentation methods, we identify a million unique peptides from 17,717 protein groups, with a median sequence coverage of approximately 80%. Direct comparison with RNA expression data provides evidence for the translation of most nonsynonymous variants. We have also hypothesized that undetected variants likely arise from mutation-induced protein instability. We further observe comparable detection rates for exon-exon junction peptides representing constitutive and alternative splicing events. Our dataset represents a resource for proteoform discovery and provides direct evidence that most frame-preserving alternatively spliced isoforms are translated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".