You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Ion charges can be represented in the current version of ProForma (section 7.1 - MS Extensions)
EMEVEESPEK/3[+2Na+,+H+]
EMEVEESPEK/-1[+e-]
Given examples in the specification
This does not specify notation for the ionic species. It does state however that quite high complexity options are valid: the removal of a OH-. It does not state how higher charged ionic species are notated, for example on higher charged metal ions like Fe[III].
Potential uses for a higher complexity notation. Note on the last example: the 3+ here indicates that there are 3 H and that the charge of the whole species is +1
To me it seems logical to specify this as using the full modification Formula: notation (with e allowed as well) followed by the total number of charges for that species. But that implies that this field can have paired square brackets [], positive and negative numbers internally, and this might introduce some visual ambiguity on what the final number is doing.
Additionally there is one example that does not use a sign on the number of the ions. While there are also examples where there is only a sign used. Formalising the notation seems warranted to me.
EMEVEESPEK/-2[2I-]
Given example in the specification using only a number as the number of times an ionic species is present
This is the same in a bit of somewhat more readable BNF like notation
For a bit of background I came upon this when implementing my own parser for ProForma. I have no serious need or use for any of the complexity here, but my code internally allows to specify any chemical formula as ionic species so I was looking into this section to look into how to export the internal peptides back to fully valid ProForma.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Ion charges can be represented in the current version of ProForma (section 7.1 - MS Extensions)
Given examples in the specification
This does not specify notation for the ionic species. It does state however that quite high complexity options are valid:
the removal of a OH-
. It does not state how higher charged ionic species are notated, for example on higher charged metal ions likeFe[III]
.Potential uses for a higher complexity notation. Note on the last example: the 3+ here indicates that there are 3 H and that the charge of the whole species is +1
To me it seems logical to specify this as using the full modification
Formula:
notation (withe
allowed as well) followed by the total number of charges for that species. But that implies that this field can have paired square brackets[]
, positive and negative numbers internally, and this might introduce some visual ambiguity on what the final number is doing.Additionally there is one example that does not use a sign on the number of the ions. While there are also examples where there is only a sign used. Formalising the notation seems warranted to me.
Given example in the specification using only a number as the number of times an ionic species is present
Here is a beast of a regular expression for how this format could look (does not check for use of valid elements)
Here it is in regex101 with some example matches
This is the same in a bit of somewhat more readable BNF like notation
For a bit of background I came upon this when implementing my own parser for ProForma. I have no serious need or use for any of the complexity here, but my code internally allows to specify any chemical formula as ionic species so I was looking into this section to look into how to export the internal peptides back to fully valid ProForma.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: