Tandem mass spectrometry of protein—Protein complexes: Cytochrome <i>c</i>—Cytochrome <i>b</i><sub>5</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An improved method to interpret triple quadrupole MS/MS experiments of complexes of large ions is presented and applied to a study of the complex formed by the proteins cytochrome c and cytochrome b5. Modeling of the activation and dissociation process shows that most of the reaction occurs near the collision cell exit where ions have the highest internal energies. Experiments at different collision cell pressures or with different collision gases (Ne, Ar, Kr) are interpreted with a previously proposed collision model (Chen et al., Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 1998, 12, 1003-1010) to calculate the internal energy added to ions to cause dissociation. Small but systematic differences under different experimental conditions are attributed to different times available for reaction. A method to correct for this is presented. Ne, Ar, and Kr are found to have similar energy transfer efficiencies. Complexes of cytochrome c and cytochrome b5 are detected in ESI mass spectra but with abundances less than expected from the solution equilibrium. Dissociation of the cytochrome c-cytochrome b5 complexes with charge k gives as the most abundant fragments, cytochrome b5(+3) and cytochrome c+(k-3). Adding charges to the complex destabilizes it. A series of cytochrome c variants with Lys residues thought to be involved in solution binding replaced by Ala showed no differences in the energy required to induce dissociation of the gas phase complex. The implications for the binding of the gas phase ions are inconclusive.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".