Combination of Edman degradation of peptides with liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry workflow for peptide identification in bottom‐up proteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: High-throughput methods of proteomics are essential for identification of proteins in a cell or tissue under certain conditions. Most of these methods require tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). A multidimensional approach including predictive chromatography and partial chemical degradation could be a valuable alternative and/or addition to MS/MS. METHODS: In the proposed strategy peptides are identified in a three-dimensional (3D) search space consisting of retention time (RT), mass, and reduced mass after one-step partial Edman degradation. The strategy was evaluated in silico for two databases: baker's yeast and human proteins. Rates of unambiguous identifications were estimated for mass accuracies from 0.001 to 0.05 Da and RT prediction accuracies from 0.1 to 5 min. Rates of Edman reactions were measured for test peptides. RESULTS: A 3D description of proteolytic peptides allowing unambiguous identification without employing MS/MS of up to 95% and 80% of tryptic peptides from the yeast and human proteomes, respectively, was considered. Further extension of the search space to a four-dimensional one by incorporating the second N-terminal amino acid residue as the fourth dimension was also considered and was shown to result in up to 90% of human peptides being identified unambiguously. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed 3D search space can be a useful alternative to MS/MS-based peptide identification approach. Experimental implementations of the proposed method within the on-line liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC/MS) and off-line matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) workflows are in progress.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".