Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24349930›Full record

ArticleMass spectrometry (Tokyo, Japan)2013

Pushing the Frontier of High-Definition Ion Mobility Spectrometry Using FAIMS.

Alexandre A Shvartsburg, Gordon A Anderson, Richard D Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Mass spectrometry (Tokyo, Japan), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Characterizing Thermal Transitions of IgG with Mass Spectrometry.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Advances in Mass Spectrometric Tools for Probing Neuropeptides.Annual review of analytical chemistry (Palo Alto, Calif.) · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Alexandre A ShvartsburgBiological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Gordon A AndersonBiological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Richard D SmithBiological Sciences Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differential ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) separates ions in gases based on the difference between their mobilities in strong and weak electric fields, captured directly employing a periodic waveform with dissimilar profiles in opposite polarities. As that difference is not tightly correlated with the ion size or mass, FAIMS separations are generally quite orthogonal to both conventional IMS (based on the absolute ion mobility that reflects the physical ion size) and mass spectrometry (based on mass). Until a few years ago, that advantage was largely offset by poor FAIMS resolving power (∼10-20), an order of magnitude below that achieved with conventional (drift-tube) IMS. This article summarizes the major recent technical developments that have raised FAIMS resolving power up to ∼500. These include use of higher and more stable voltages provided by new waveform generators, novel buffer gas compositions comprising high helium or hydrogen fractions, and extended filtering times up to ∼1 s. These advances have enabled previously unthinkable analyses such as broad baseline separations of peptide sequence inversions, localization variants (post-translationally modified peptides with differing PTM attachment sites) even for the larger "middle-down" peptides and smallest PTMs, and lipid regioisomers.

Indexed as

differential IMSFAIMSion mobility spectrometrylipidomicspost-translational modificationsproteomics

Identifiers

PMID24349930
PMCPMC3810224

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.