<i>De novo</i> peptide sequencing using CID and HCD spectra pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS), there are several different fragmentation techniques possible, including, collision-induced dissociation (CID) higher energy collisional dissociation (HCD), electron-capture dissociation (ECD), and electron transfer dissociation (ETD). When using pairs of spectra for de novo peptide sequencing, the most popular methods are designed for CID (or HCD) and ECD (or ETD) spectra because of the complementarity between them. Less attention has been paid to the use of CID and HCD spectra pairs. In this study, a new de novo peptide sequencing method is proposed for these spectra pairs. This method includes a CID and HCD spectra merging criterion and a parent mass correction step, along with improvements to our previously proposed algorithm for sequencing merged spectra. Three pairs of spectral datasets were used to investigate and compare the performance of the proposed method with other existing methods designed for single spectrum (HCD or CID) sequencing. Experimental results showed that full-length peptide sequencing accuracy was increased significantly by using spectra pairs in the proposed method, with the highest accuracy reaching 81.31%.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".