Toward an Ultimate Solution for Peptide Retention Time Prediction: The Effect of Column Temperature on Separation Selectivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the effect of the column temperature on the selectivity of reversed-phase peptide separation in bottom-up proteomics. The number of peptide identifications from 2 h liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) acquisitions reaches a plateau at 45-55 °C, driven simultaneously by improved separation efficiency, a gradual decrease in peptide retention, and possible on-column degradation of peptides at elevated temperatures. Performing 2D LC-MS/MS acquisitions at 25, 35, 45, and 55 °C resulted in the identification of ∼100,000 and ∼120,000 unique peptides for nonmodified and tandem mass tags (TMT)-labeled samples, respectively. These peptide collections were used to investigate the temperature-driven retention features. The latter is governed by the specific temperature response of individual residues, peptide hydrophobicity and length, and amphipathic helicity. On average, peptide retention decreased by 0.56 and 0.5% acetonitrile for each 10 °C increase for label-free and TMT-labeled peptides, respectively. This generally linear response of retention shifts allowed the extrapolation of predictive models beyond the studied temperature range. Thus, (trap) column cooling from room temperature to 0 °C will allow the retention of an additional 3% of detectable tryptic peptides. Meanwhile, the application of 90 °C would result in the loss of ∼20% of tryptic peptides that were amenable to MS/MS-based identification.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".