ArticleJournal of proteomics & bioinformatics2013
Multifactorial Understanding of Ion Abundance in Tandem Mass Spectrometry Experiments.
Article in Journal of proteomics & bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a bottom-up shotgun approach, the proteins of a mixture are enzymatically digested, separated, and analyzed via tandem mass spectrometry. The mass spectra relating fragment ion intensities (abundance) to the mass-to-charge are used to deduce the amino acid sequence and identify the peptides and proteins. The variables that influence intensity were characterized using a multi-factorial mixed-effects model, a ten-fold cross-validation, and stepwise feature selection on 6,352,528 fragment ions from 61,543 peptide ions. Intensity was higher in fragment ions that did not have neutral mass loss relative to any mass loss or that had a +1 charge state. Peptide ions classified for proton mobility as non-mobile had lowest intensity of all mobility levels. Higher basic residue (arginine, lysine or histidine) counts in the peptide ion and low counts in the fragment ion were associated with lower fragment ion intensities. Higher counts of proline in peptide and fragment ions were associated with lower intensities. These results are consistent with the mobile proton theory. Opposite trends between peptide and fragment ion counts and intensity may be due to the different impact of factor under consideration at different stages of the MS/MS experiment or to the different distribution of observations across peptide and fragment ion levels. Presence of basic residues at all three positions next to the fragmentation site was associated with lower fragment ion intensity. The presence of proline proximal to the fragmentation site enhanced fragmentation and had the opposite trend when located distant from the site. A positive association between fragment ion intensity and presence of sulfur residues (cysteine and methionine) on the vicinity of the fragmentation site was identified. These results highlight the multi-factorial nature of fragment ion intensity and could improve the algorithms for peptide identification and the simulation in tandem mass spectrometry experiments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.