MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123081993 · doi:10.1002/jms.3646

Enhancement of mass spectrometry performance for proteomic analyses using high‐field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS)

2015· article· en· W2123081993 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Bonneil, Sibylle Pfammatter, Pierre Thibault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mass Spectrometry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicMass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome Canada
KeywordsIon-mobility spectrometryChemistryMass spectrometryChromatographyContext (archaeology)ProteomicsProteomeTop-down proteomicsPeptideAnalytical Chemistry (journal)IonResolution (logic)Bottom-up proteomicsProtein mass spectrometryTandem mass spectrometryOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations42
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mass SpectrometrySame topicMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207