Elucidation of Fragmentation Mechanisms of Protonated Peptide Ions and Their Products: A Case Study on Glycylglycylglycine Using Density Functional Theory and Threshold Collision-Induced Dissociation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fragmentation mechanisms of protonated triglycine and its first-generation dissociation products have been investigated using a combination of density functional theory calculations and threshold collision-induced dissociation experiments. The activation barrier measured for the fragmentation of protonated triglycine to the b(2) ion and glycine is in good agreement with a calculated barrier at the B3LYP/6-31++G(d,p) level of theory reported earlier [Rodriquez, C. F. et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 3006-3012]. The b(2) ion fragments to the a(2) ion via a transition state structure that is best described as acylium-like. Contrary to what is commonly assumed, the lowest energy structure of the a(2) ion is not an iminium ion, but a cyclic, protonated 4-imidazolidone. Furthermore, fragmentation of the b(2) to the a(1) ion proceeds not via a mechanism that results in HNCO and H(2)C=C=O as byproducts, as have been postulated, but via a transition state that contains an incipient a(1) ion and an incipient carbene. The fragmentation of a(2) to a(1) proceeds via a transition state structure that contains the a(1) ion, CO and an imine as incipient components.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it