Unifying Expression Scale for Peptide Hydrophobicity in Proteomic Reversed Phase High-Pressure Liquid Chromatography Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an initial step in our efforts to unify the expression of peptide retention times in proteomic liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) experiments, we aligned the chromatographic properties of a number of peptide retention standards against a collection of peptides commonly observed in proteomic experiments. The standard peptide mixtures and tryptic digests of samples of different origins were separated under the identical chromatographic condition most commonly employed in proteomics: 100 Å C18 sorbent with 0.1% formic acid as an ion-pairing modifier. Following our original approach (Krokhin, O. V.; Spicer, V. Anal. Chem. 2009, 81, 9522-9530) the retention characteristics of these standards and collection of tryptic peptides were mapped into hydrophobicity index (HI) or acetonitrile percentage units. This scale allows for direct visualization of the chromatographic outcome of LC-MS acquisitions, monitors the performance of the gradient LC system, and simplifies method development and interlaboratory data alignment. Wide adoption of this approach would significantly aid understanding the basic principles of gradient peptide RP-HPLC and solidify our collective efforts in acquiring confident peptide retention libraries, a key component in the development of targeted proteomic approaches.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".