Studies on azaspiracid biotoxins. II. Mass spectral behavior and structural elucidation of azaspiracid analogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this report, the mass spectral analysis of azaspiracid biotoxins is described. Specifically, the collision-induced dissociation (CID) behavior and differences between CID spectra obtained on a triple-quadrupole, a quadrupole time-of-flight, and an ion-trap mass spectrometer are addressed here. The CID spectra obtained on the triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer allowed the classification of the major product ions of the five investigated compounds (AZA 1-5) into five distinct fragment ion groups, according to the backbone cleavage positions. Although the identification of unknown azaspiracids was difficult based on CID alone, the spectra provided sufficient structural information to allow confirmation of known azaspiracids in marine samples. Furthermore, we were able to detect two new azaspiracid analogs (AZA 1b and 6) in our samples and provide a preliminary structural analysis. The proposed dissociation pathways under tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) conditions were confirmed by a comparison with accurate mass data from electrospray quadrupole time-of-flight MS/MS experiments. Regular sequential MS(n) analysis on an ion-trap mass spectrometer was more restricted in comparison to the triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer, because the azaspiracids underwent multiple [M + H - nH(2)O](+) (n = 1-6) losses from the precursor ion under CID. Thus, the structural information obtained from MS(n) experiments was somewhat limited. To overcome this limitation, we developed a wide-range excitation technique using a 180-u window that provided results comparable to the triple-quadrupole instrument. To demonstrate the potential of the method, we applied it to the analysis of degraded azaspiracids from mussel tissue extracts.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".