Cargando…

Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data

[Image: see text] Clean high-resolution mass spectra (HRMS) are essential to a successful structural elucidation of an unknown feature during nontarget analysis (NTA) workflows. This is a crucial step, particularly for the spectra generated during data-independent acquisition or during direct infusi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Herwerden, Denice, O’Brien, Jake W., Lege, Sascha, Pirok, Bob W. J., Thomas, Kevin V., Samanipour, Saer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2023
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37549176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00896
_version_ 1785094733593313280
author van Herwerden, Denice
O’Brien, Jake W.
Lege, Sascha
Pirok, Bob W. J.
Thomas, Kevin V.
Samanipour, Saer
author_facet van Herwerden, Denice
O’Brien, Jake W.
Lege, Sascha
Pirok, Bob W. J.
Thomas, Kevin V.
Samanipour, Saer
author_sort van Herwerden, Denice
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Clean high-resolution mass spectra (HRMS) are essential to a successful structural elucidation of an unknown feature during nontarget analysis (NTA) workflows. This is a crucial step, particularly for the spectra generated during data-independent acquisition or during direct infusion experiments. The most commonly available tools only take advantage of the time domain for spectral cleanup. Here, we present an algorithm that combines the time domain and mass domain information to perform spectral deconvolution. The algorithm employs a probability-based cumulative neutral loss (CNL) model for fragment deconvolution. The optimized model, with a mass tolerance of 0.005 Da and a score(CNL) threshold of 0.00, was able to achieve a true positive rate (TPr) of 95.0%, a false discovery rate (FDr) of 20.6%, and a reduction rate of 35.4%. Additionally, the CNL model was extensively tested on real samples containing predominantly pesticides at different concentration levels and with matrix effects. Overall, the model was able to obtain a TPr above 88.8% with FD rates between 33 and 79% and reduction rates between 9 and 45%. Finally, the CNL model was compared with the retention time difference method and peak shape correlation analysis, showing that a combination of correlation analysis and the CNL model was the most effective for fragment deconvolution, obtaining a TPr of 84.7%, an FDr of 54.4%, and a reduction rate of 51.0%.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10448439
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104484392023-08-25 Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data van Herwerden, Denice O’Brien, Jake W. Lege, Sascha Pirok, Bob W. J. Thomas, Kevin V. Samanipour, Saer Anal Chem [Image: see text] Clean high-resolution mass spectra (HRMS) are essential to a successful structural elucidation of an unknown feature during nontarget analysis (NTA) workflows. This is a crucial step, particularly for the spectra generated during data-independent acquisition or during direct infusion experiments. The most commonly available tools only take advantage of the time domain for spectral cleanup. Here, we present an algorithm that combines the time domain and mass domain information to perform spectral deconvolution. The algorithm employs a probability-based cumulative neutral loss (CNL) model for fragment deconvolution. The optimized model, with a mass tolerance of 0.005 Da and a score(CNL) threshold of 0.00, was able to achieve a true positive rate (TPr) of 95.0%, a false discovery rate (FDr) of 20.6%, and a reduction rate of 35.4%. Additionally, the CNL model was extensively tested on real samples containing predominantly pesticides at different concentration levels and with matrix effects. Overall, the model was able to obtain a TPr above 88.8% with FD rates between 33 and 79% and reduction rates between 9 and 45%. Finally, the CNL model was compared with the retention time difference method and peak shape correlation analysis, showing that a combination of correlation analysis and the CNL model was the most effective for fragment deconvolution, obtaining a TPr of 84.7%, an FDr of 54.4%, and a reduction rate of 51.0%. American Chemical Society 2023-08-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10448439/ /pubmed/37549176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00896 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle van Herwerden, Denice
O’Brien, Jake W.
Lege, Sascha
Pirok, Bob W. J.
Thomas, Kevin V.
Samanipour, Saer
Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title_full Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title_fullStr Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title_full_unstemmed Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title_short Cumulative Neutral Loss Model for Fragment Deconvolution in Electrospray Ionization High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Data
title_sort cumulative neutral loss model for fragment deconvolution in electrospray ionization high-resolution mass spectrometry data
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10448439/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37549176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c00896
work_keys_str_mv AT vanherwerdendenice cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata
AT obrienjakew cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata
AT legesascha cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata
AT pirokbobwj cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata
AT thomaskevinv cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata
AT samanipoursaer cumulativeneutrallossmodelforfragmentdeconvolutioninelectrosprayionizationhighresolutionmassspectrometrydata