Sequence-Specific Model for Peptide Retention Time Prediction in Strong Cation Exchange Chromatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of a peptide retention prediction model for strong cation exchange (SCX) separation on a Polysulfoethyl A column is reported. Off-line 2D LC-MS/MS analysis (SCX-RPLC) of S. cerevisiae whole cell lysate was used to generate a retention dataset of ∼30 000 peptides, sufficient for identifying the major sequence-specific features of peptide retention mechanisms in SCX. In contrast to RPLC/hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) separation modes, where retention is driven by hydrophobic/hydrophilic contributions of all individual residues, SCX interactions depend mainly on peptide charge (number of basic residues at acidic pH) and size. An additive model (incorporating the contributions of all 20 residues into the peptide retention) combined with a peptide length correction produces a 0.976 R 2 value prediction accuracy, significantly higher than the additive models for either HILIC or RPLC. Position-dependent effects on peptide retention for different residues were driven by the spatial orientation of tryptic peptides upon interaction with the negatively charged surface functional groups. The positively charged N-termini serve as a primary point of interaction. For example, basic residues (Arg, His, Lys) increase peptide retention when located closer to the N-terminus. We also found that hydrophobic interactions, which could lead to a mixed-mode separation mechanism, are largely suppressed at 20–30% of acetonitrile in the eluent. The accuracy of the final Sequence-Specific Retention Calculator (SSRCalc) SCX model (∼0.99 R 2 value) exceeds all previously reported predictors for peptide LC separations. This also provides a solid platform for method development in 2D LC-MS protocols in proteomics and peptide retention prediction filtering of false positive identifications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".