High-quality peptide evidence for annotating non-canonical open reading frames as human proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major scientific drive is to characterize the protein-coding genome as it provides the primary basis for the study of human health. But the fundamental question remains: what has been missed in prior genomic analyses? Over the past decade, the translation of non-canonical open reading frames (ncORFs) has been observed across human cell types and disease states, with major implications for proteomics, genomics, and clinical science. However, the impact of ncORFs has been limited by the absence of a large-scale understanding of their contribution to the human proteome. Here, we report the collaborative efforts of stakeholders in proteomics, immunopeptidomics, Ribo-seq ORF discovery, and gene annotation, to produce a consensus landscape of protein-level evidence for ncORFs. We show that at least 25% of a set of 7,264 ncORFs give rise to translated gene products, yielding over 3,000 peptides in a pan-proteome analysis encompassing 3.8 billion mass spectra from 95,520 experiments. With these data, we developed an annotation framework for ncORFs and created public tools for researchers through GENCODE and PeptideAtlas. This work will provide a platform to advance ncORF-derived proteins in biomedical discovery and, beyond humans, diverse animals and plants where ncORFs are similarly observed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".