ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2025
Assigning Peptide Structure from Ion-Mobility Mass Spectrometry Collision Cross Section Data.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Computational Chemistry and Ion Mobility Spectrometry into Non-Targeted Analysis Workflows for the Structural Elucidation of Emerging PFAS.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2026Article
- PEAS: An Application for Autonomous Precision Conformation Sampling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ion mobility (IM) technique coupled with traditional mass spectrometry (IM-MS) has introduced a practical tool for the characterization of peptide analyte ions by exploiting the difference in their collision cross section (CCS) values. CCS holds molecular level information that can be used to computationally assign the conformation(s) of a molecular system. However, a reliable and accurate method for peptide structure prediction remains a challenge because peptides exhibit dynamic gas-phase intramolecular interactions, and hence, the methods used will need to account for this. In this work, we systematically assessed the performance of a computational workflow involving both classical and density functional theory (DFT) steps to elucidate the peptide structure. Not unexpectedly, extensive enumeration of available peptide conformations was critical to obtain high-quality results. Due to the size of the systems studied and the large numbers of conformers that needed to be optimized, we initially chose the D3-B3LYP/6-31G(d) level of theory and obtained good agreement between experimental and computed CCS values. However, in several cases, suboptimal accuracies were observed, but we found that increasing the basis set used to 6-31G(d,p) was able to improve our agreement with experiment. Altogether, we demonstrated that accurate peptide structure assignment is achievable with adequate sampling of the conformational space and using the appropriate quantum mechanical level of theory to account for intramolecular interactions in the gas phase.
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.