Sequence-Specific Model for Predicting Peptide Collision Cross Section Values in Proteomic Ion Mobility Spectrometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of peptide amino acid sequence to collision cross section values (CCS) has been investigated using a dataset of ∼134 000 peptides of four different charge states (1+ to 4+). The migration data were acquired using a two-dimensional liquid chromatography (LC)/trapped ion mobility spectrometry/quadrupole/time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MS) analysis of HeLa cell digests created using seven different proteases and was converted to CCS values. Following the previously reported modeling approaches using intrinsic size parameters (ISP), we extended this methodology to encode the position of individual residues within a peptide sequence. A generalized prediction model was built by dividing the dataset into eight groups (four charges for both tryptic/nontryptic peptides). Position-dependent ISPs were independently optimized for the eight subsets of peptides, resulting in prediction accuracy of ∼0.981 for the entire population of peptides. We find that ion mobility is strongly affected by the peptide's ability to solvate the positively charged sites. Internal positioning of polar residues and proline leads to decreased CCS values as they improve charge solvation; conversely, this ability decreases with increasing peptide charge due to electrostatic repulsion. Furthermore, higher helical propensity and peptide hydrophobicity result in a preferential formation of extended structures with higher than predicted CCS values. Finally, acidic/basic residues exhibit position-dependent ISP behavior consistent with electrostatic interaction with the peptide macrodipole, which affects the peptide helicity. The MS raw data files have been deposited with the ProteomeXchange Consortium via the jPOST partner repository (http://jpostdb.org) with the dataset identifiers PXD021440/JPST000959, PXD022800/JPST001017, and PXD026087/ JPST001176.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".