A genome-wide association study of mass spectrometry proteomics using the Seer Proteograph platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) with proteomics are essential tools for drug discovery. To date, most studies have used affinity proteomics platforms, which have limited discovery to protein panels covered by the available affinity binders. Furthermore, it is not clear to which extent protein epitope changing variants interfere with the detection of protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs). Mass spectrometry-based (MS) proteomics can overcome some of these limitations. Here we report a GWAS using the MS-based Seer Proteograph TM platform with blood samples from a discovery cohort of 1,260 American participants and a replication in 325 individuals from Asia, with diverse ethnic backgrounds. We analysed 1,980 proteins quantified in at least 80% of the samples, out of 5,753 proteins quantified across the discovery cohort. We identified 252 and replicated 90 pQTLs, where 30 of the replicated pQTLs have not been reported before. We further investigated 200 of the strongest associated cis-pQTLs previously identified using the SOMAscan and the Olink platforms and found that up to one third of the affinity proteomics pQTLs may be affected by epitope effects, while another third were confirmed by MS proteomics to be consistent with the hypothesis that genetic variants induce changes in protein expression. The present study demonstrates the complementarity of the different proteomics approaches and reports pQTLs not accessible to affinity proteomics, suggesting that many more pQTLs remain to be discovered using MS-based platforms. Graphical Abstract Summarizing the approach taken to identify potential epitope effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".