Peptide End Sequencing by Orthogonal MALDI Tandem Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highly sensitive peptide fragmentation and identification in sequence databases is a cornerstone of proteomics. Previously, a two-layered strategy consisting of MALDI peptide mass fingerprinting followed by electrospray tandem mass spectrometry of the unidentified proteins has been successfully employed. Here, we describe a high-sensitivity/high-throughput system based on orthogonal MALDI tandem mass spectrometry (o-MALDI) and the automated recognition of fragments corresponding to the N- and C-terminal amino acid residues. Robotic deposition of samples onto hydrophobic anchor substrates is employed, and peptide spectra are acquired automatically. The pulsing feature of the QSTAR o-MALDI mass spectrometer enhances the low mass region of the spectra by approximately 1 order of magnitude. Software has been developed to automatically recognize characteristic features in the low mass region (such as the y1 ion of tryptic peptides), maintaining high mass accuracy even with very low count events. Typically, the sum of the N-terminal two ions (b2 ion), the third N-terminal ion (b3 ion), and the two C-terminal fragments of the peptide (y1 and y2) can be determined. Given mass accuracy in the low ppm range, peptide end sequencing on one or two tryptic peptides is sufficient to uniquely identify a protein from gel samples in the low silver-stained range.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 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".