Capillary electrophoresis of synthetic peptide standards varying in charge and hydrophobicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mixture of eight structurally closely related synthetic peptides as capillary electrophoretic (CE) standards is introduced. The almost identical mass-to-charge ratio of the standards, coupled with their random-coil (i.e., no secondary structure) nature, offer a potent analytical test for CE to separate peptides varying only subtly in hydrophobicity. Parameters varied to effect a separation included background electrolyte concentration, temperature, applied voltage in capillary zone electrophoresis (CZE in uncoated capillaries), as well as the introduction of hydrophobic mechanisms to the separation either through the use of micelles or C8-coated capillaries. Our step-by-step approach culminated in an optimized combination of a CZE mechanism for separation of differently charged peptide groups (based on common mass-to-charge ratio) and an ion-pairing mechanism (effecting a separation within each group of identically charged peptides), which we have termed ion-interaction CZE or II-CZE. The study clearly shows how the peptide standards allow an excellent assessment of the resolving power of CE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".