Fragmentation reactions of deprotonated peptides containing proline. The proline effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collision-induced dissociation (CID) fragmentation reactions of a variety of deprotonated peptides containing proline have been studied in detail using MS(2) and MS(3) experiments, deuterium labelling and accurate mass measurements when necessary. The [M--H--CO(2)](-) (a(2)) ion derived from H-Pro-Xxx-OH dipeptides shows an unusual fragmentation involving loss of C(2)H(4); this fragmentation reaction is not observed for larger peptides. The primary fragmentation reactions of deprotonated tripeptides with an N-terminal proline are formation of a(3) and y(1) ions. When proline is in the central position of tripeptides, a(3), y(2) and y(1) ions are the primary fragmentation products of [M--H](-), while when the proline is in the C-terminal position, a(3)and y(1) ions are the major primary products. In the latter case, the a(3) ion fragments primarily to the ''b(2) ion; further evidence is presented that the ''b(2) ions have a deprotonated oxazolone structure. Larger deprotonated peptides having at least two amino acid residues N-terminal to proline show a distinct preference for cleavage of the amide bond N-terminal to proline to form, mainly, the appropriate y ion. This proline effect is compared and contrasted with the similar proline effect observed in the fragmentation of protonated peptides containing proline.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".