Formation of iminium ions by fragmentation of a <sub>2</sub> ions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tandem mass spectrometric experiments have been carried out on the protonated amides H-Gly-Ala-NH2, H-Ala-Gly-NH2, H-Ala-Val-NH2, H-Val-Ala-pNA, H-Leu-Phe-NH2, H-Phe-Leu-NH2, H-Phe-Tyr-NH2 and H-Tyr-Phe-NH2 with particular emphasis on the fragmentation of the isomeric a2 ions derived therefrom. Primary fragmentation reactions of the protonated amides involve formation of the y1" and b2 ions with further fragmentation of the b2 ion to form the a2 ion which fragments to form iminium ions. Collision-induced dissociation studies of the mass-selected a2 ions were carried out. For the Gly-Ala, Ala-Gly and Val-Ala a2 ions, weak signals were observed corresponding to loss of CO from the a2 ion. With the exception of the Gly-Ala, Ala-Gly and Val-Ala a2 ions, both possible iminium ions (a1 and the internal iminium ion) are observed with the most abundant being that formed by proton attachment to the imine of higher proton affinity. The results provide strong support for the recently proposed (El Aribi et al. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003; 125: 9229) mechanism of fragmentation of a2 ions which involves elimination of CO from the a2 ion to form a proton-bound complex of two imines. Based on this mechanism ab initio calculations of the total energies of the a2 ions and the transition states for fragmentation have been carried out giving the energy barrier for fragmentation of each a2 ion. The experimental results are interpreted in terms of these energetics data, unimolecular rate constants calculated by using the RRKM theory, and the imine proton affinities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".