MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071068331 · doi:10.1021/ac800260w

Exploring the Precursor Ion Exclusion Feature of Liquid Chromatography−Electrospray Ionization Quadrupole Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry for Improving Protein Identification in Shotgun Proteome Analysis

2008· article· en· W2071068331 on OpenAlexaff
Nan Wang, Liang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryMass spectrometryChromatographyElectrospray ionizationTandem mass spectrometryElectrosprayShotgun proteomicsProteomeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonShotgunProteomicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In shotgun proteome analysis by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), not all coeluting peptides at a given retention time are subjected to MS/MS due to the limitation of spectral acquisition speed of a mass spectrometer. In this work, precursor ion exclusion (PIE) in an electrospray ionization (ESI) quadrupole time-of-flight (QTOF) mass spectrometer was explored as a means of mitigating the undersampling problem. This strategy is based on running replicates of the sample where the precursor ions detected in the initial run(s) are excluded for MS/MS in the subsequent run. Four PIE methods as well as running replicates without PIE were investigated and compared for their effectiveness in identifying peptides and proteins. In the analysis of an MCF-7 breast cancer cell lysate digest by three replicate 2 h gradient LC-ESI runs, the first PIE method used a list of precursor ions detected in the initial run(s) for exclusion and identified a total of 572 proteins from the three runs combined with an average of 3.59 peptides matched to a protein. The second PIE method involved in the generation of a list of m/ z values of precursor ions along with their retention time information from the initial run(s), followed by entering these ions with retention times into the ion exclusion program of the QTOF control software for exclusion at a predefined retention time window (i.e., +/-150 s). In comparison to the first PIE method, this method reduced the possibility of excluding different peptide ions of the same m/ z (within a mass tolerance window) eluted at different retention windows. A total of 657 proteins were identified with an average of 3.75 peptides matched to a protein. The third PIE method studied relied on the exclusion of the precursor ions of peptides identified through database search of the MS/MS spectra generated in the initial run(s). This selective PIE method identified a total of 681 proteins with an average of 3.68 peptides matched to a protein. The final PIE method investigated involves the expansion of the selective PIE list by including nonidentifiable peptide ions found in the database search. This complete PIE method identified a total of 726 proteins with an average of 3.66 peptides per protein. In the case of three replicate runs without PIE, a total of 460 proteins were identified with an average of 3.51 peptides matched to a protein. Thus, the use of an optimal PIE strategy significantly increased the number of proteins identified from replicate runs (i.e., 726 vs 460 or a 58% increase). It is further demonstrated that this PIE strategy also improves protein identification efficiency in the analysis of a yeast whole cell lysate digesta less complex proteome digest. A total of 533 proteins identified from five replicate runs with complete PIE, compared to 353 proteins identified from the five replicate runs without PIE, representing a 51% increase in the number of proteins identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical ChemistrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207