MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133019729

Exploration of the essential requirements for the proteomic analysis of the metabotropic glutamate receptors by mass spectrometry

2005· dissertation· W7133019729 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joseph Chun Pong Koo

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2005
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonoclonal antibodyTandem mass spectrometryTandem mass tagImmunoprecipitationRecombinant DNAMetabotropic glutamate receptor 4EndogenyMass spectrometryMetabotropic glutamate receptorMetabotropic glutamate receptor 2
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this project was to explore the essential requirements for purifying recombinant and endogenous forms of the metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) for analysis by mass spectrometry. Truncated c-myc mGluR4 secreted from transfected human embryonic 293 kidney cells was purified by immunoprecipitation using a c-myc-specific affinity conjugate. The purified receptor was analyzed by gel electrophoresis, subjected to in-gel digestion with trypsin, and analyzed by MALDI-TOF and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Using this method, the amino acid sequences of three peptides were found and matched correctly to the truncated mGluR4 receptor. Attempts were made to purify the endogenous mGluR4 from rat cerebella using immunoprecipitation with mGluR4-specific antibodies as well as hydroxyapatite and ion exchange chromatography. MALDI-TOF and tandem mass spectrometry could not identify the endogenous mGluR4 partially purified by anion exchange chromatography. My results indicated that protein purification is crucial to the successful analysis of mGluRs using mass spectrometry.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research→French-language works237,207→