Detection of human unannotated microproteins by mass spectrometry-based proteomics: a community assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thousands of short open reading frames (sORFs) are translated outside of annotated coding sequences. Recent studies have pioneered searching for sORF-encoded microproteins in mass spectrometry (MS)- based proteomics and peptidomics datasets. Here, we assessed literature-reported MS-based identifications of unannotated human proteins. We find that studies vary by three orders of magnitude in the number of unannotated proteins they report. Of nearly 10,000 reported sORF-encoded peptides, 96% were unique to a single study, and 12% mapped to annotated proteins or proteoforms. Manual curation of a benchmark dataset of 406 manually evaluated spectra from 204 sORF-encoded proteins revealed large variation in peptide-spectrum match (PSM) quality between studies, with immunopeptidomics studies generally reporting higher quality PSMs than conventional enzymatic digests of whole cell lysates. We estimate that 65% of predicted sORF-encoded protein detections in immunopeptidomics studies were supported by high-quality PSMs versus 7.8% in non-immunopeptidomics datasets. Our work stresses the need for standardized protocols and analysis workflows to guide future advancements in microprotein detection by MS towards uncovering how many human microproteins exist.
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 | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".