Improved Peptide Identification by Targeted Fragmentation Using CID, HCD and ETD on an LTQ-Orbitrap Velos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past decade peptide sequencing by collision induced dissociation (CID) has become the method of choice in mass spectrometry-based proteomics. The development of alternative fragmentation techniques such as electron transfer dissociation (ETD) has extended the possibilities within tandem mass spectrometry. Recent advances in instrumentation allow peptide fragment ions to be detected with high speed and sensitivity (e.g., in a 2D or 3D ion trap) or at high resolution and high mass accuracy (e.g., an Orbitrap or a ToF). Here, we describe a comprehensive experimental comparison of using ETD, ion-trap CID, and beam type CID (HCD) in combination with either linear ion trap or Orbitrap readout for the large-scale analysis of tryptic peptides. We investigate which combination of fragmentation technique and mass analyzer provides the best performance for the analysis of distinct peptide populations such as N-acetylated, phosphorylated, and tryptic peptides with up to two missed cleavages. We found that HCD provides more peptide identifications than CID and ETD for doubly charged peptides. In terms of Mascot score, ETD FT outperforms the other techniques for peptides with charge states higher than 2. Our data shows that there is a trade-off between spectral quality and speed when using the Orbitrap for fragment ion detection. We conclude that a decision-tree regulated combination of higher-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) and ETD can improve the average Mascot score.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".