Why do some entries have a paranthesis after the fragment charge state?

[gsaxena888]

In some entries, I see a paranthes after what I believe is the fragment charge number, eg y2^2) whereas in other entries I don't see a paranthes, eg b10^2/. Could you clarify what the paranthesis means and why it appears in some entries but not others? The full example of a predicted spectra from which the above two situations has been pulled from is shown below:

Name: AAEGADTTGATPK/3
MW: 397.19469168128995
Comment: Parent=397.19469168128995 Collision_energy=35.0 Mods=0 ModString=AAEGADTTGATPK///3 iRT=-19.559999465942383
Num peaks: 26
147.11281       0.32989058      "y1/0.0ppm"
72.04439        0.047566075     "b1/0.0ppm"
244.16557       1.0     "y2/0.0ppm"
122.586426      0.0008872726    "y2^2)/0.0ppm"
143.0815        0.6619359       "b2/0.0ppm"
345.21326       0.24960361      "y3/0.0ppm"
272.12408       0.062890545     "b3/0.0ppm"
416.25037       0.048209973     "y4/0.0ppm"
329.14557       0.08895395      "b4/0.0ppm"
165.07642       0.0023177553    "b4^2)/0.0ppm"
473.27182       0.16780965      "y5/0.0ppm"
237.13956       0.0058048028    "y5^2)/0.0ppm"
400.18268       0.02851274      "b5/0.0ppm"
574.3195        0.093369454     "y6/0.0ppm"
515.2096        0.035596747     "b6/0.0ppm"
258.10846       0.002202321     "b6^2)/0.0ppm"
675.3672        0.03287529      "y7/0.0ppm"
616.2573        0.0065132547    "b7/0.0ppm"
308.6323        0.003955793     "b7^2)/0.0ppm"
790.3941        0.007055764     "y8/0.0ppm"
359.15613       0.004619954     "b8^2)/0.0ppm"
387.66687       0.0025268008    "b9^2)/0.0ppm"
918.4527        0.003008747     "y10/0.0ppm"
423.18542       0.005045848     "b10^2/0.0ppm"
473.70926       0.0041979477    "b11^2/0.0ppm"
522.23566       0.002945542     "b12^2/0.0ppm"

[tkschmidt]

probably my fault. The parser for generating the comments is using insufficient amount of characters to save the field. It will hopefully be fixed in the next release (coming soonTM). does it break some of your pipelines?

[gsaxena888]

I just ignored the "extra" parentheses, so it didn't break the pipeline (assuming ignoring is ok). Would this "next release" also include 1) the latest Prosit 2020 model or 2) the logic to support neutral loss fragments and support for modifications others than oxidation of methionine? (FYI: Currently, we're testing the code on a Google Cloud virtual machine with a single Nvidia GPU.)