Compendium of Chromatographic Behavior of Post-translationally and Chemically Modified Peptides in Bottom-Up Proteomic Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have systematically evaluated the chromatographic behavior of post-translationally/chemically modified peptides using data spanning over 70 of the most relevant modifications. These retention properties were measured for standard bottom-up proteomic settings (fully porous C18 separation media, 0.1% formic acid as ion-pairing modifier) using collections of modified/nonmodified peptide pairs. These pairs were generated by spontaneous degradation, chemical or enzymatic treatment, analysis of synthetic peptides, or the cotranslational incorporation of noncanonical proline analogues. In addition, these measurements were validated using external data acquired for synthetic peptides and enzymatically induced citrullination. Working in units of hydrophobicity index (HI, % ACN) and evaluating the average retention shifts (Δ H I) represent the simplest approach to describe the effect of modifications from a didactic point of view. Plotting HI values for modified ( y -axis) vs nonmodified ( x -axis) counterparts generates unique slope and intercept values for each modification defined by the chemistry of the modifying moiety: its hydrophobicity, size, p K a of ionizable groups, and position of the altered residue. These composition-dependent correlations can be used for coarse incorporation of PTMs into models for prediction of peptide retention. More accurate predictions would require the development of specific sequence-dependent algorithms to predict Δ H I values.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".