MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404027850 · doi:10.1002/rcm.9937

Optimization of protein identifications through the use of different chromatographic approaches and bioinformatic pipelines

2024· article· en· W4404027850 on OpenAlexafffund
Jesús D. Castaño, Francis Beaudry

Bibliographic record

VenueRapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Computer scienceIdentification (biology)ProteomeWorkflowData acquisitionData miningChromatographyChemistryComputational biologyDatabaseBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RATIONALE: Selection of proteomic workflows for a given project can be a daunting task. This research provides a guide outlining the impact on protein identification of different steps such as chromatographic separation, data acquisition strategies, and bioinformatic pipelines. The data presented here will help experts and nonexpert proteomic users to increase proteome coverage and peptide identification. METHODS: HeLa protein digests were analyzed through different C18 chromatographic columns (15 and 50 cm in length), using top 12 data-dependent acquisition (DDA), top 20 DDA, and data-independent acquisition (DIA) with a nanospray source in positive mode in a Thermo Q Exactive instrument. The raw data were analyzed using different search engines, rescoring approaches, and multi-engine searches. The results were analyzed in the context of peptide and protein identifications, precursor properties, and computation requirements to understand the differences between methods. RESULTS: Our results showed that higher column lengths and top N DDA approaches were able to significantly increase protein identifications. The use of multiple search engines yielded limited gains, whereas the use of rescoring methods clearly outperformed other strategies. Finally, DIA approaches, although successful at generating new identifications, had a limited performance influenced by the previous collection of DDA data, which could prohibitively increase instrument time. Nonetheless, the use of library-free methods showed promising results. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the impact of different experimental approaches on proteome coverage. Changes in chromatographic columns, data acquisition, or bioinformatic analysis can significantly increase the number of protein identifications (>400%). Thus, this research provides a reference upon which to build a successful proteomic workflow with different considerations at every step.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRapid Communications in Mass SpectrometrySame topicAdvanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207