Trace Sample Proteome Quantification by Data-Dependent Acquisition without Dynamic Exclusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Despite continuous technological improvements in sample preparation, mass-spectrometry-based proteomics for trace samples faces the challenges of sensitivity, quantification accuracy, and reproducibility. Herein, we explored the applicability of turboDDA (a method that uses data-dependent acquisition without dynamic exclusion) for quantitative proteomics of trace samples. After systematic optimization of acquisition parameters, we compared the performance of turboDDA with that of data-dependent acquisition with dynamic exclusion (DEDDA). By benchmarking the analysis of trace unlabeled human cell digests, turboDDA showed substantially better sensitivity in comparison with DEDDA, whether for unfractionated or high pH fractionated samples. Furthermore, through designing an iTRAQ-labeled three-proteome model (i.e., tryptic digest of protein lysates from yeast, human, and E. coli ) to document the interference effect, we evaluated the quantification interference, accuracy, reproducibility of iTRAQ labeled trace samples, and the impact of PIF (precursor intensity fraction) cutoff for different approaches (turboDDA and DEDDA). The results showed that improved quantification accuracy and reproducibility could be achieved by turboDDA, while a more stringent PIF cutoff resulted in more accurate quantification but less peptide identification for both approaches. Finally, the turboDDA strategy was applied to the differential analysis of limited amounts of human lung cancer cell samples, showing great promise in trace proteomics sample analysis.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".