Milestone-Proposal talk:Laser Ionization Mass Spectrometer, 1988

Advocates’ Checklist

1. Is proposal for an achievement rather than for a person?
2. Was proposed achievement a significant advance rather than an incremental improvement to an existing technology?
3. Were there prior or contemporary achievements of a similar nature?
4. Has the achievement truly led to a functioning, useful, or marketable technology?
5. Is proposal adequately supported by significant references (minimum of five) such as patents, contemporary newspaper articles, journal articles, or citations to pages in scholarly books? At least one of the references from a peer-reviewed scholarly book or journal article. The full text of the material, not just the references, shall be present. If the supporting texts are copyright-encumbered and cannot be posted on the ETHW for intellectual property reasons, the proposers shall email a copy to the History Center so that it can be forwarded to the advocate. If the advocate does not consider the supporting references sufficient, the advocate may ask the proposer(s) for additional ones.
6. Are the scholarly references sufficiently recent?
7. Is proposed citation readable and understandable by the general public?
8. Does the proposed plaque site fulfill the requirements? Is the address complete? Are the GPS coordinates correct and in decimal format?
9. Is the proposal quality comparable to that of IEEE publications?
10. Scientific and technical units correct? (e.g. km, mm, hertz, etc.) Are acronyms correct and properly upperercased or lowercased?
11. Date formats correct as specified in Section 6 of Milestones Program Guidelines? https://ieeemilestones.ethw.org/Helpful_Hints_on_Citations,_Plaque_Locations

Reviewers’ Checklist

1. Is suggested wording of the Plaque Citation accurate?
2. Is evidence presented in the proposal of sufficient substance and accuracy to support the Plaque Citation?
3. Does proposed milestone represent a significant technical achievement?
4. Were there similar or competing achievements? If so, have the proposers adequately described these and their relationship to the achievement being proposed?

Message from Advocate to Proposer -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Proposer. I was nominated by the IEEE History Committee to become an advocate for this Milestone proposal, #2023-29. I've already nominated three expert reviewers to review it. Please, you are requested to respond promptly to any discussions or questions from the History Committee, advocate, the expert reviewers, and so on. Best regards, Advocate.

Re: Message from Advocate to Proposer -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Advocate, Thank you for taking on the role of Advocate, and for facilitating the aforementioned procedure. Understood. We kindly request your continued support. Best Regards, Yoshinari Shirasaki

Expert review uploaded on behalf of the advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yamagaki Review

Additional Expert Review uploaded on behalf of the advocate -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to get name-in-citation approval by the Milestone Sub-Committee, I, as an advocate, ask to the expert reviewers two additional questions as follows. Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka’s achievements in the reference? Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka’s name in the Citation? Best regards, Advocate

---

Additional Review of Advocate's Request Regarding Name-in-Citation

To: Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow Advocate 2023-29, IEEE History Committee

Dear Prof. Tomohiro Hase, Thank you for your two additional questions, Q5 and Q6. My opinions are as follows.

Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka's achievements in the reference?

Yes, I confirmed that the references [3], the Nobel Lecture, and the literature considered in the selection for the Nobel Prize [1][13][14] confirm Mr. Tanaka's revolutionary invention called Soft Laser Desorption/Ionization technology. While these documents mention various technologies for the novel mass spectrometer, it was the invention of this ionization method that was considered so groundbreaking that it was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka's name in the Citation?

Yes, I recognize that as quite valid because the mass spectrometer, worthy of being called a Milestone, is the embodiment of Tanaka's Nobel Prize-winning invention.

---

If the above is sufficient, I would greatly appreciate it. Best regards,

Tohru Yamagaki, Ph.D. General Manager and Executive Researcher, Suntory Foundation for Life Sciences, 1-1-8 Seikadai, Seika-cho, Soraku-gun, Kyoto Japan 619-0284

Expert review 2 uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Review Sekimoto

Additional Expert Review 2 uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to get name-in-citation approval by the Milestone Sub-Committee, I, as an advocate, ask to the expert reviewers two additional questions as follows. Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka’s achievements in the reference? Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka’s name in the Citation? Best regards, Advocate

---

Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow Advocate 2023-29, IEEE History Committee February 20, 2024

Review for additional questions: personal name in the citation

Dear Prof. Hase,

Thank you for your additional questions regarding to personal name in the citation. I have the following comments to make.

Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka's achievements in the reference?

Yes, the primal results are shown in [13] and [14], and it can be confirmed in [2] that it was further patented in [1] and finally culminated in the product, LAMS-50K. This flow can also be confirmed in [3], which is the record of the Nobel Prize award lecture. From the above, it is clear that Koichi Tanaka has achieved this technological innovation.

Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka's name in the Citation?

Yes, I understand that it is important to have Koichi Tanaka's name in the citation. It is true that various colleagues were involved in the development of this technology at various phases, but on the other hand, it is also clear that this accomplishment would not have been possible without the tireless ingenuity and inspiration of Dr. Tanaka, who has consistently worked on the development. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to carve Dr. Tanaka's name on the citation to acknowledge his efforts in developing this product.

I hope these will help discussions and decision. Best regards,

Kanako Sekimoto, Ph.D. Mass Spectrometry Laboratory and Atmospheric Environment Yokohama City University

Expert review 3 uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Review Kodera

Additional Expert Review 3 uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to get name-in-citation approval by the Milestone Sub-Committee, I, as an advocate, ask to the expert reviewers two additional questions as follows. Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka’s achievements in the reference? Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka’s name in the Citation? Best regards, Advocate

---

Review of additional questions regarding the inclusion of a personal name in the Citation (A Review for IEEE Milestone Proposal titled “Laser Ionization Mass Spectrometer, 1988”, Docket #: 2023-29)

Dear Dr. Tomohiro Hase,

Thank you for your email. I would like to express my opinion regarding the two additional questions that I received.

Q5) Have you reviewed Koichi Tanaka's achievements in the reference?

Yes, I have confirmed Dr. Tanaka's achievements in the literature. In 1985, Dr. Tanaka filed a patent application for a new ionization method [1]. This method allowed for successful mass spectrometry of molecular weights over 100,000 [13] [14]. In recognition of these accomplishments, Dr. Tanaka was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. He discussed this groundbreaking work in detail during his Nobel Lecture [3].

Q6) Do you recognize the significance of writing Koichi Tanaka's name in the Citation?

Yes, I believe it is appropriate to include Dr. Tanaka's name. The monumental mass spectrometer developed by Dr. Tanaka et al. has demonstrated its worldwide significance by earning him the Nobel Prize.

I hope this meets your needs. Kind regards.

Yoshio Kodera, Ph.D. Professor in the Department of Physics, School of Science, Kitasato University Director of the Center for Disease Proteomics, School of Science, Kitasato University

Advocate recommendation uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Administrator4 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Advocate recommendation

Revised Advocate recommendation uploaded on behalf of advocate -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 07:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

In order to get name-in-citation approval by the Milestone Sub-Committee, I revised my Advocate’s Recommendation. Here is a part of “(3) Advocate’s Comment and Conclusion:”. Best regards, Advocate

---

(3) Advocate’s Comment and Conclusion: I received the above satisfactory peer review results from three experts in the field of proposals. I received many comments on the discussion page of the ETHW Website, too. These expert reviewer’s reports and discussions were very useful for my decision as an advocate for Milestone 2023-29.

Citation: Three expert reviewers responded that citation is accurate, judging by the answers to question Q1. They also reported that they confirmed that the contents of the citation are supported by evidences, judging by the answers to question Q2. As an advocate, I have the same judgment as reviewers, too. One thing I would like to point out is that Koichi Tanaka's name is in citation. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2002 for the technology used in the proposed device. His achievement is significant in the world, and I strongly support his name-in-citation as an advocate. I hope that this matter will be approved by the Sub-committee in History Committee discussions.

Technical significance and historical value: Three reviewers gave me detailed answers to question Q3 and Q4. In addition, there were many support comments posted on the discussion page of the ETHW Website. They explained the technical significance of the Mass Spectrometer with this Laser Ionization technology, and the historical value was explained, too. This can be seen easily from the fact that Koichi Tanaka was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2002.

Name-in-Citation: I asked additionally all expert reviewers about the validity of the Name-in-Citation. All reviewers confirmed Koichi Tanaka’s achievements from the evidences, judging by the answers to question Q5. And all reviewers support his name in the citation, judging by the answers to question Q6. I agree their thoughts from them and recommend that his name, Koichi Tanaka, in the citation. In addition, the proposer added a new section on “Justification of Name in the Citation” and explained it in detail.

Advocate’s Conclusion: All three expert reviewers gave the proposal strong recognition and support that it deserves the IEEE Milestone certification. Of course, I also consulted many comments on the ETHW Website. I have considered carefully both the proposal and the expert reviewer’s reports and have the same thought as reviewers. In conclusion, I strongly recommend this proposal to the IEEE Milestone as an advocate.

Best regards, Dr. Tomohiro Hase, IEEE Fellow. Advocate #2023-29, IEEE History Committee.

A comment on this proposal from Masanori Emori -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

On this proposal, I’ve gotten a comment by email and show you it below;

Comments on LAMS-50K developed by Dr. Koichi Tanaka, et al.

I provided support for Dr. Koichi Tanaka's "ms3d project" at Shimadzu Corporation as part of the national research program "FIRST PROGRAM" (2010-4). This project focused on MALDI-MS technology and yielded valuable results, such as the early detection of the causative agent of Alzheimer's disease. These results have since been utilized for societal implementation. MALDI-MS has made significant contributions not only in this area but also in various fields, including medicine. It will continue to play a crucial role in advancing medical and pharmaceutical sciences. The history of MALDI-MS dates back to the release of LAMS-50K in 1988, making it a milestone product.

2024/2/11

Masanori Emori

Manager, Department for Information Infrastructure, Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)

Yoshinari Shirasaki

A comment on this proposal from Mitsuo Takayama -- Shinkawabata (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I have received a comment regarding this proposal as follows;

•••

Letter to recommendation

Confirming the significance and innovation of any invention can be a time-consuming process. However, the impact of Shimadzu's LAMS-50K laser-based instrument, invented in 1988, on the biotech fields of the 1990s and beyond has been immeasurable. This impact has been felt not only in science and technology but also in the business world of medical and pharmaceutical companies. The MALDI MS instruments based on the LAMS-50K have had a significant economic impact. Undoubtedly, the invention of the LAMS-50K has triggered the rapid growth of the now flourishing fields of proteomics, integrated-omics, and imaging, and led to their subsequent global development. Additionally, the growth of the biotechnology field in the new era was unexpectedly linked to the Nobel Prize awarded to Koichi Tanaka in 2002. It is fitting that this series of events will mark the LAMS-50K as a historical milestone in innovation.

12Feb. 2024

Mitsuo Takayama, Ph.D.

Yokohama City University, Professor Emeritus

•••

posted by Shin-ichirou Kawabata

A comment on this proposal from Maiko Kusano -- Shinkawabata (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear participants in this discussion,

I have received a comment regarding this proposal as follows.

•••

Letter of Recommendation

The impact LAMS-50K has made on the mass spectrometry community with its release in 1988 was truly phenomenal and deserves recognition as a historical milestone innovation. The possibility of measuring high molecular weight proteins was recognized by only a handful of scientists at the time, and it was just the same year in 1988 that several papers were published acknowledging this possibility. The innovative LAMS-50K opened a new door to mass analysis of macromolecules but initially, implementation and use of the instrument was limited. The development of this instrument became a turning point, gradually leading to the growth and flourishing of mass analysis of macromolecules in the 1990s, to the widespread application of MALDI-TOFMS in multi-omics, medicine, and life sciences that we have today. It is my pleasure to recommend LAMS-50K to be awarded the IEEE Milestone recognition.

February 13, 2024

Maiko Kusano, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Showa University School of Medicine Department of Legal Medicine

•••

posted by Shin-ichirou Kawabata

Proposal Needs Justfication Section, and Names of Relevant Technical Societies and Technical Councils -- Bberg (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware that the Checklists included on this Comments pages should have included (1) if a person's name(s) is/are included in the citation, there must be a Justification section included after the citation to support this, and (2) the section labeled "IEEE technical societies and technical councils within whose fields of interest the Milestone proposal resides" should provide appropriate information. The Justification section is needed since Koichi Tanaka's name is in the citation.

There is already lots of information about Koichi Tanaka in the proposal, so providing the Justification section should not be overly burdensome at this point. To help you with this, I have extracted the following from pp. 17-18 in Section 5.1.2.2 of the December 2023 version of the History Committee Manual:

[The proposal must include] detailed, clearly stated, and incontrovertible evidence, particularly historical evidence and documentation, that one or more persons were central to the achievement and deserve to be singled out beyond others, and that the list is comprehensive and does not omit anyone who should be explicitly credited on the plaque.

[S]uch evidence must be provided in the proposal, and in particular in a section labeled “Justification for Inclusion of Name(s) in the Citation” which would immediately follow the citation. This evidence must be supported by multiple references and/or submitted documents, and at least two expert reviews must both confirm the veracity of this evidence and confirm support for including the name(s) as proposed in the citation.

Also, the proposer will need to request a pre-approval from the Milestones Subcommittee for the proposal’s inclusion of name(s). The Milestones Subcommittee may question the proposal and ask for changes before its approval and submission to the History Committee. Changes requested by the Subcommittee can include the correction of any shortcomings or oversights within the proposal as a whole.

Regarding the second point, the technical societies and technical councils section must be filled in, but this should be easy to do.

Note that once the 2 issues outlined above are addressed, the proposer will need to request pre-approval from the Milestones Subcommittee for the proposal’s inclusion of Koichi Tanaka's name. The Milestones Subcommittee may question the proposal and ask for changes before its approval and submission to the History Committee. Changes requested by the Subcommittee can include the correction of any shortcomings or oversights within the proposal as a whole.

Thank you. Brian Berg, Milestones Subcommittee Chair

Re: Proposal Needs Justfication Section, and Names of Relevant Technical Societies and Technical Councils -- Tomohiro Hase (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Brian Berg san. Thank you very much for pointing out the issues and your advice. I'll consider some details with proposer as soon as possible. Best regards, Advocate.

Re: Proposal Needs Justfication Section, and Names of Relevant Technical Societies and Technical Councils -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Brian Berg,

Thank you for pointing out that there are some missing parts in the proposal. As a representative of Shimadzu Corp., the proposer, I appreciate your feedback and assure you that we will make it our top priority to fill in the gaps as soon as possible. We will also ensure that we carefully incorporate the advice provided by the Advocate.

Best regards,

Yoshinari Shirasaki Shimadzu Corp.

Re: Proposal Needs Justfication Section, and Names of Relevant Technical Societies and Technical Councils -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Brian Berg,

Based on your advice, I have completed the section on 'IEEE technical societies and technical councils'. Additionally, I have added some information to the section on 'What features set this work apart from similar achievements?' to provide a clearer understanding of Koichi Tanaka's contribution. We will proceed with the remaining tasks for completion as soon as possible.

Thank you for your guidance.

Best regards,

Yoshinari Shirasaki Shimadzu Corp.

Re: Proposal Needs Justfication Section, and Names of Relevant Technical Societies and Technical Councils -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Brian Berg,

Based on your advice, I have made the section 'Justification of Name in the Citation' at the top of the field, “What is the historical significance of the work？”. Additionally, I have added some information to the section on 'Koichi Tanaka received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2002' to clarify the independence of Fenn's work.

Thank you for your guidance. Best regards,

Yoshinari Shirasaki Shimadzu Corp.

Correction of Citation -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made a correction to the citation. In accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Brian Berg, we have revised the original phrase "Koichi Tanaka, who developed this technology" to "Koichi Tanaka, the key developer of this technology". Thank you, Brian, for your suggestion.

Sincerely, Yoshinari Shirasaki, Shimadzu Corporation.

A comment on this proposal from Hiroaki Sato -- Shinkawabata (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Dear participants in this discussion,

I have received a comment regarding this proposal as follows.

•••

Letter of Recommendation

I would like to emphasize the impact made by this equipment back in 1988.

Mass spectrometry has been an innovative method that can determine the molecular weight of various organic compounds. Until the late 1980s, however, it was extremely difficult to measure high-molecular weight organic compounds such as proteins. In 1988, several papers reported that it was possible to measure the molecular weight of proteins by mass spectrometry combined with a laser beam irradiation method using an ionization reagent, now called as MALDI.

In the same year 1988, this equipment capable of performing this measurement was put on the market, making it possible for anyone to determine the molecular weight of proteins. Unfortunately, this equipment was unable to establish a market, but the development of this equipment was a turning point, and in the 1990s, the world gradually understood that mass spectrometry of high-molecular weight compounds was extremely important to humanity. Nowadays, MALDI-TOFMS has become an important tool not only for the characterization of biomolecules such as proteins, lipids, and polysaccharides, but also for the rapid identification of microorganisms. In the industrial field, it has also developed as a means of characterization techniques of synthetic polymers as an indispensable device in the chemical industry.

The birth of this device was an epoch-making event worthy of being called a milestone.

February 26, 2024

Hiroaki Sato, Ph.D.

Director-General, AIST Chugoku and

Director, Research Institute for Sustainable Chemistry National

Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)

•••

posted by Shin-ichirou Kawabata

Modification of "Justification of Name in the Citation" and "Citation" following the advice from Milestone Subcommittee -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Following the advice from the Milestone Subcommittee, I have made revisions to the "Justification of Name in the Citation" and the "Citation." In the "Justification of Name in the Citation," I have added the names of other developers. I have also specified the distinction between the winners of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and included relevant literature. For the "Citation," I have made modifications in accordance with the committee's proposal.

Yoshinari Shirasaki, Shimadzu Corporation

Re: Modification of "Justification of Name in the Citation" and "Citation" following the advice from Milestone Subcommittee -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

After the above-mentioned modification, I received a proposed revision for the citation from Mr. Brian Berg, and I made the revision accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Brian Berg.

Yoshinari Shirasaki, Shimadzu Corporation

Re: Re: Modification of "Justification of Name in the Citation" and "Citation" following the advice from Milestone Subcommittee -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

After the revision of the citation above, we received further advice from Mr. Brian Berg and made thorough revisions based on it. We sincerely express our gratitude to Mr. Brian Berg once again.

Yoshinari Shirasaki, Shimadzu Corporation

Units of Measure -- Jbart64 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this milestone. As an edit, I would add three words "grams per mole" so the reader understands the units of measure. These would go at the end of the sentence "...molecular weight was at least 50,000 grams per mole." This will bring you to 70 words, the maximum. Dave Bart IEEE History Committee

Re: Units of Measure -- Bberg (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion, Dave. I agree, and fully support this change.

Re: Units of Measure -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Mr. Dave Bart and Mr. Brian Berg, thank you for your comment. I appreciate your feedback and agree with making the necessary changes to include the units as suggested. Since 'gram per mole' is the unit for molar mass, I would like to modify the part that mentioned 'molecular weight'. Additionally, I would like to use the symbol 'g/mol' instead of the unit according to the current SI guidelines. If the History Committee recommends changing the Citation in the Proposal as indicated below, I will proceed with the modifications.

Citation； “In 1988, Shimadzu Corporation released a mass spectrometer that could measure macromolecules whose molar mass was at least 50,000 g/mol. This instrument was the world's first commercially-available device that applied Soft Laser Desorption/Ionization techniques. As the key developer of this technology, Koichi Tanaka won the 2002 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. This instrument's popularity led to new pharmaceuticals and diagnosis capabilities in the fields of molecular biology and medicine.” (68 words)

Yoshinari Shirasaki, Shimadzu Corporation

review comment -- Cohenmax (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the proposal. Parts of it are beyond my comprehension of the material, but the recent discussion about the units seem appropriate and needed. Maxine Cohen IEEE History Committee

Re: review comment -- Bberg (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I consulted with my wife on this topic as she is a Chemistry teacher, and she validated the new wording. She noted that use of the term "macromolecules" is accurate since 50,000 grams/mole is a huge number, and would apply, for example, to proteins or polymers which are huge chains of molecules.

Since laypeople should be able to read a citation and at least appreciate what it says even if they do not fully understand the underlying technology, the abbreviation of "g/mol" would not be appropriate in the context of a citation as it is very oblique. One might also stumble over "grams/mole." Instead, I strongly urge "grams per mole," and the first sentence would thus read "In 1988, Shimadzu Corporation released a mass spectrometer that could measure macromolecules whose molar mass was at least 50,000 grams per mole." which is 70 words.

Re: Re: review comment -- Yoshinari Shirasaki (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Maxine Cohen and Mr. Brian Berg, thank you both for your valuable feedback. I appreciate Ms. Cohen for your comment and Mr. Berg for providing the revision suggestion and the explanation behind it. I followed your instruction and made the correction to the citation.

Best regards, Yoshinari Shirasaki Shimadzu Corporation