MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074877005 · doi:10.1002/jms.703

Ion activation methods for tandem mass spectrometry

2004· review· en· W2074877005 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mass Spectrometry · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Marine Biosciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryTandem mass spectrometryCollision-induced dissociationMass spectrometryIonFragmentation (computing)Dissociation (chemistry)TandemElectron ionizationIon sourceMoleculeAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonizationChromatographyPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This tutorial presents the most common ion activation techniques employed in tandem mass spectrometry. In-source fragmentation and metastable ion decompositions, as well as the general theory of unimolecular dissociations of ions, are initially discussed. This is followed by tandem mass spectrometry, which implies that the activation of ions is distinct from the ionization step, and that the precursor and product ions are both characterized independently by their mass/charge ratios. In collision-induced dissociation (CID), activation of the selected ions occurs by collision(s) with neutral gas molecules in a collision cell. This experiment can be done at high (keV) collision energies, using tandem sector and time-of-flight instruments, or at low (eV range) energies, in tandem quadrupole and ion trapping instruments. It can be performed using either single or multiple collisions with a selected gas and each of these factors influences the distribution of internal energy that the activated ion will possess. While CID remains the most common ion activation technique employed in analytical laboratories today, several new methods have become increasingly useful for specific applications. More recent techniques are examined and their differences, advantages and disadvantages are described in comparison with CID. Collisional activation upon impact of precursor ions on solid surfaces, surface-induced dissociation (SID), is gaining importance as an alternative to gas targets and has been implemented in several different types of mass spectrometers. Furthermore, unique fragmentation mechanisms of multiply-charged species can be studied by electron-capture dissociation (ECD). The ECD technique has been recognized as an efficient means to study non-covalent interactions and to gain sequence information in proteomics applications. Trapping instruments, such as quadrupole ion traps and Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance instruments, are particularly useful for the photoactivation of ions, specifically for fragmentation of precursor ions by infrared multiphoton dissociation (IRMPD). IRMPD is a non-selective activation method and usually yields rich fragmentation spectra. Lastly, blackbody infrared radiative dissociation is presented with a focus on determining activation energies and other important parameters for the characterization of fragmentation pathways. The individual methods are presented so as to facilitate the understanding of each mechanism of activation and their particular advantages and representative applications.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.348 · 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