NovoHCD: De novo Peptide Sequencing From HCD Spectra
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, de novo peptide sequencing from mass spectrometry data has developed as one of the major peptide identification methods with the emergence of new instruments and advanced computational methods. However, there are still limitations to this method; for example, the typically used spectrum graph model cannot represent all the information and relationships inherent in tandem mass spectra (MS/MS spectra). Here, we present a new method named NovoHCD which applies a spectrum graph model with multiple types of edges (called a multi-edge graph), and integrates into it amino acid combination (AAC) information and peptide tags. In addition, information on immonium ions observed particularly in higher-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) spectra is incorporated. Comparisons between NovoHCD and another successful de novo peptide sequencing method for HCD spectra, pNovo, were performed. Experiments were conducted on five HCD spectral datasets. Results show that NovoHCD outperforms pNovo in terms of full length peptide identification accuracy; specifically, the accuracy increases 13%-21% over the five datasets.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it