Formation of Gaseous Proteins via the Ion Evaporation Model (IEM) in Electrospray Mass Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mechanisms whereby protein ions are released into the gas phase from charged droplets during electrospray ionization (ESI) continue to be controversial. Several pathways have been proposed. For native ESI the charged residue model (CRM) is favored; it entails the liberation of proteins via solvent evaporation to dryness. Unfolded proteins likely follow the chain ejection model (CEM), which involves the gradual expulsion of stretched-out chains from the droplet. According to the ion evaporation model (IEM) ions undergo electrostatically driven desorption from the droplet surface. The IEM is well supported for small precharged species such as Na+. However, it is unclear whether proteins can show IEM behavior as well. We examined this question using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, mass spectrometry (MS), and ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) in positive ion mode. Ubiquitin was chosen as the model protein because of its structural stability which allows the protein charge in solution to be controlled via pH adjustment without changing the protein conformation. MD simulations on small ESI droplets (3 nm radius) showed CRM behavior regardless of the protein charge in solution. Surprisingly, many MD runs on larger droplets (5.5 nm radius) culminated in IEM ejection of ubiquitin, as long as the protein carried a sufficiently large positive solution charge. MD simulations predicted that nonspecific salt adducts are less prevalent for IEM-generated protein ions than for CRM products. This prediction was confirmed experimentally. Also, collision cross sections of MD structures were in good agreement with IMS data. Overall, this work reveals that the CRM, CEM, and IEM all represent viable pathways for generating gaseous protein ions during ESI. The IEM is favored for proteins that are tightly folded and highly charged in solution and for droplets in a suitable size regime.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".