Targeted Quantification of Proteoforms in Complex Samples by Proteoform Reaction Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing mass spectrometric assays used for sensitive and specific measurements of target proteins across multiple samples, such as selected/multiple reaction monitoring (SRM/MRM) or parallel reaction monitoring (PRM), are peptide-based methods for bottom-up proteomics. Here, we describe an approach based on the principle of PRM for the measurement of intact proteoforms by targeted top-down proteomics termed Proteoform Reaction Monitoring (PfRM). We explore the ability of our method to circumvent traditional limitations of top-down proteomics such as sensitivity and reproducibility. We also introduce a new software, Proteoform Finder, specifically designed for easy analysis of PfRM data. PfRM was initially benchmarked by quantifying three standard proteins. Linearity of the assay was shown over almost three orders of magnitude in the femtomole range. We later applied our multiplexed PfRM assay to complex samples to quantify biomarker candidates in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) from liver transplanted patients, demonstrating its possible translational applications. These results demonstrate that PfRM has the potential to contribute to the accurate quantification of protein biomarkers for diagnostic purposes and to improve understanding of disease etiology at the proteoform level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".