Protein Structural Studies by Traveling Wave Ion Mobility Spectrometry: A Critical Look at Electrospray Sources and Calibration Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question whether electrosprayed protein ions retain solution-like conformations continues to be a matter of debate. One way to address this issue involves comparisons of collision cross sections (Ω) measured by ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) with Ω values calculated for candidate structures. Many investigations in this area employ traveling wave IMS (TWIMS). It is often implied that nanoESI is more conducive for the retention of solution structure than regular ESI. Focusing on ubiquitin, cytochrome c, myoglobin, and hemoglobin, we demonstrate that Ω values and collisional unfolding profiles are virtually indistinguishable under both conditions. These findings suggest that gas-phase structures and ion internal energies are independent of the type of electrospray source. We also note that TWIMS calibration can be challenging because differences in the extent of collisional activation relative to drift tube reference data may lead to ambiguous peak assignments. It is demonstrated that this problem can be circumvented by employing collisionally heated calibrant ions. Overall, our data are consistent with the view that exposure of native proteins to electrospray conditions can generate kinetically trapped ions that retain solution-like structures on the millisecond time scale of TWIMS experiments. ᅟ
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".