New Method Enhanced Extraction of Protein Signatures of Renal Cell Carcinoma from Proteomics Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we generated label-free data-independent acquisition (DIA)-based liquid chromatography (LC)-mass spectrometry (MS) proteomics data from 261 renal cell carcinomas (RCC) and 195 normal adjacent tissues (NAT). The RCC tumors included 48 nonclear cell renal cell carcinomas (non-ccRCC) and 213 ccRCC. A total of 219,740 peptides and 11,943 protein groups were identified, with 9,787 protein groups per sample on average. We adopted a comprehensive approach to select representative samples with different mutations, considering histopathological, immune, methylation, and non-negative matrix factorization (NMF)-based subtypes, along with clinical characteristics (gender, grade, and stage) to capture the complexity and diversity of ccRCC tumors. We identified a protein signature containing 55 proteins that distinguish RCC tumors from NATs. Furthermore, a protein signature containing 39 proteins that differentiate different RCC tumor subtypes was also identified. Our findings offer an extensive perspective of the proteomic landscape in RCC, illuminating specific proteins that serve to distinguish RCC tumors from NATs and among various RCC tumor subtypes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".