MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400300730 · doi:10.20517/mrr.2024.21

Assessing fecal metaproteomics workflow and small protein recovery using DDA and DIA PASEF mass spectrometry

2024· article· en· W4400300730 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Yee‐Moon Wang, Emily E.F. Fekete, Marybeth Creskey, Kai Cheng, Zhibin Ning, Annabelle Pfeifle, Xuguang Li, Daniel Figeys, Xu Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiome Research Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaproteomicsWorkflowMass spectrometryChromatographyComputer scienceChemistryProteomicsDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the impact of experimental workflow on fecal metaproteomic observations, including the recovery of small and antimicrobial proteins often overlooked in metaproteomic studies. The overarching goal is to provide guidance for optimized metaproteomic experimental design, considering the emerging significance of the gut microbiome in human health, disease, and therapeutic interventions. Methods: Mouse feces were utilized as the experimental model. Fecal sample pre-processing methods (differential centrifugation and non-differential centrifugation), protein digestion techniques (in-solution and filter-aided), data acquisition modes (data-dependent and data-independent, or DDA and DIA) when combined with parallel accumulation-serial fragmentation (PASEF), and different bioinformatic workflows were assessed. Results: We showed that, in DIA-PASEF metaproteomics, the library-free search using protein sequence database generated from DDA-PASEF data achieved better identifications than using the generated spectral library. Compared to DDA, DIA-PASEF identified more microbial peptides, quantified more proteins with fewer missing values, and recovered more small antimicrobial proteins. We did not observe any obvious impacts of protein digestion methods on both taxonomic and functional profiles. However, differential centrifugation decreased the recovery of small and antimicrobial proteins, biased the taxonomic observation with a marked overestimation of Muribaculum species, and altered the measured functional compositions of metaproteome. Conclusion: This study underscores the critical impact of experimental choices on metaproteomic outcomes and sheds light on the potential biases introduced at different stages of the workflow. The comprehensive methodological comparisons serve as a valuable guide for researchers aiming to enhance the accuracy and completeness of metaproteomic analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiome Research ReportsSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207