Implementation and Uses of Automated de Novo Peptide Sequencing by Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are several computer programs that can match peptide tandem mass spectrometry data to their exactly corresponding database sequences, and in most protein identification projects, these programs are utilized in the early stages of data interpretation. However, situations frequently arise where tandem mass spectral data cannot be correlated with any database sequences. In these cases, the unmatched data could be due to peptides derived from novel proteins, allelic or species-derived variants of known proteins, or posttranslational or chemical modifications. Two additional problems are frequently encountered in high-throughput protein identification. First, it is difficult to quickly sift through large amounts of data to identify those spectra that, due to poor signal or contaminants, can be ignored. Second, it is important to find incorrect database matches (false positives). We have chosen to address these difficulties by performing automatic de novo sequencing using a computer program called Lutefisk. Sequence candidates obtained are used as input in a homology-based database search program called CIDentify to identify variants of known proteins. Comparison of database-derived sequences with de novo sequences allows for electronic validation of database matches even if the latter are not completely correct. Modifications to the original Lutefisk program have been implemented to handle data obtained from triple quadrupole, ion trap, and quadrupole/time-of-flight hybrid (Qtof) mass spectrometers. For example, the linearity of mass errors due to temperature-dependent expansion of the flight tube in a Qtof was exploited such that isobaric amino acids (glutamine/lysine and oxidized methionine/ phenylalanine) can be differentiated without careful attention to mass calibration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".