Assessing the precision of a detergent‐assisted cartridge precipitation workflow for non‐targeted quantitative proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Detergent-based workflows incorporating sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) necessitate additional steps for detergent removal ahead of mass spectrometry (MS). These steps may lead to variable protein recovery, inconsistent enzyme digestion efficiency, and unreliable MS signals. To validate a detergent-based workflow for quantitative proteomics, we herein evaluate the precision of a bottom-up sample preparation strategy incorporating cartridge-based protein precipitation with organic solvent to deplete SDS. The variance of data-independent acquisition (SWATH-MS) data was isolated from sample preparation error by modelling the variance as a function of peptide signal intensity. Our SDS-assisted cartridge workflow yield a coefficient of variance (CV) of 13%-14%. By comparison, conventional (detergent-free) in-solution digestion increased the CV to 50%; in-gel digestion provided lower CVs between 14% and 20%. By filtering peptides predicting to display lower precision, we further enhance the validity of data in global comparative proteomics. These results demonstrate the detergent-based precipitation workflow is a reliable approach for in depth, label-free quantitative proteome 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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".