Enhancement of mass spectrometry performance for proteomic analyses using high‐field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS)
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
Remarkable advances in mass spectrometry sensitivity and resolution have been accomplished over the past two decades to enhance the depth and coverage of proteome analyses. As these technological developments expanded the detection capability of mass spectrometers, they also revealed an increasing complexity of low abundance peptides, solvent clusters and sample contaminants that can confound protein identification. Separation techniques that are complementary and can be used in combination with liquid chromatography are often sought to improve mass spectrometry sensitivity for proteomics applications. In this context, high-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS), a form of ion mobility that exploits ion separation at low and high electric fields, has shown significant advantages by focusing and separating multiply charged peptide ions from singly charged interferences. This paper examines the analytical benefits of FAIMS in proteomics to separate co-eluting peptide isomers and to enhance peptide detection and quantitative measurements of protein digests via native peptides (label-free) or isotopically labeled peptides from metabolic labeling or chemical tagging experiments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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