Mouse Model of Fragile X Syndrome Analyzed by Quantitative Proteomics: A Comparison of Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple methods for quantitative proteomics are available for proteome profiling. It is unclear which methods are most useful in situations involving deep proteome profiling and the detection of subtle distortions in the proteome. Here, we compared the performance of seven different strategies in the analysis of a mouse model of Fragile X Syndrome, involving the knockout of the fmr1 gene that is the leading cause of autism spectrum disorder. Focusing on the cerebellum, we show that data-independent acquisition (DIA) and the tandem mass tag (TMT)-based real-time search method (RTS) generated the most informative profiles, generating 334 and 329 significantly altered proteins, respectively, although the latter still suffered from ratio compression. Label-free methods such as BoxCar and a conventional data-dependent acquisition were too noisy to generate a reliable profile, while TMT methods that do not invoke RTS showed a suppressed dynamic range. The TMT method using the TMTpro reagents together with complementary ion quantification (ProC) overcomes ratio compression, but current limitations in ion detection reduce sensitivity. Overall, both DIA and RTS uncovered known regulators of the syndrome and detected alterations in calcium signaling pathways that are consistent with calcium deregulation recently observed in imaging studies. Data are available via ProteomeXchange with the identifier PXD039885.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".