In-Depth Proteome Coverage of In Vitro-Cultured <i>Treponema pallidum</i> and Quantitative Comparison Analyses with In Vivo-Grown Treponemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Previous mass spectrometry (MS)-based global proteomics studies have detected a combined total of 86% of all Treponema pallidum proteins under infection conditions (in vivo-grown T. pallidum ). Recently, a method was developed for the long-term culture of T. pallidum under in vitro conditions (in vitro-cultured T. pallidum ). Herein, we used our previously reported optimized MS-based proteomics approach to characterize the T. pallidum global protein expression profile under in vitro culture conditions. These analyses provided a proteome coverage of 94%, which extends the combined T. pallidum proteome coverage from the previously reported 86% to a new combined total of 95%. This study provides a more complete understanding of the protein repertoire of T. pallidum . Further, comparison of the in vitro-expressed proteome with the previously determined in vivo-expressed proteome identifies only a few proteomic changes between the two growth conditions, reinforcing the suitability of in vitro-cultured T. pallidum as an alternative to rabbit-based treponemal growth. The MS proteomics data have been deposited in the MassIVE repository with the data set identifier MSV000093603 (ProteomeXchange identifier PXD047625).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".