MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999445565 · doi:10.1021/ac049230c

Nanoliter-Volume Selective Sampling of Peptides Based on Isoelectric Points for MALDI-MS

2004· article· en· W1999445565 on OpenAlexafffund
Haixia Zhang, Ken K.‐C. Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEli Lilly CanadaOntario Innovation Trust
KeywordsChemistryChromatographyIsoelectric focusingVolume (thermodynamics)Isoelectric pointSampling (signal processing)BiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple way to selectively isolate peptides based on their isoelectric points (pI) for MALDI mass spectral analysis is described. An applied voltage was used to electromigrate peptides into a capillary. The capillary was modified with a zwitterionic surfactant, 1,2-dilauroyl-sn-phosphatidylcholine (DLPC), to suppress the electroosmotic flow (EOF) during injection. Hence, either the cationic or the anionic peptides were introduced, depending on the voltage polarity. By controlling the pH, selective loading of peptides was performed to isolate trace components from a mixture. The injected sample plugs were subsequently spotted in nanoliter volumes for MALDI-MS analysis. No significant sample losses resulting from selective sampling were detected. Low attomole-level detection of peptides (adrenocorticotropic hormone fragment 18-39, pI 4.25) was achieved from a mixture containing other peptides (angiotensin I, pI 6.92, and bradykinin, pI 12.00) at 100 000-fold higher concentrations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations18
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207