Cargando…

Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data

The evaluation of liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) raw data is a crucial step in untargeted metabolomics studies to minimize false positive findings. A variety of commercial or open source software solutions are available for such data processing. This study aims to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hemmer, Selina, Manier, Sascha K., Fischmann, Svenja, Westphal, Folker, Wagmann, Lea, Meyer, Markus R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7570355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32967365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo10090378
_version_ 1783596929870987264
author Hemmer, Selina
Manier, Sascha K.
Fischmann, Svenja
Westphal, Folker
Wagmann, Lea
Meyer, Markus R.
author_facet Hemmer, Selina
Manier, Sascha K.
Fischmann, Svenja
Westphal, Folker
Wagmann, Lea
Meyer, Markus R.
author_sort Hemmer, Selina
collection PubMed
description The evaluation of liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) raw data is a crucial step in untargeted metabolomics studies to minimize false positive findings. A variety of commercial or open source software solutions are available for such data processing. This study aims to compare three different data processing workflows (Compound Discoverer 3.1, XCMS Online combined with MetaboAnalyst 4.0, and a manually programmed tool using R) to investigate LC-HRMS data of an untargeted metabolomics study. Simple but highly standardized datasets for evaluation were prepared by incubating pHLM (pooled human liver microsomes) with the synthetic cannabinoid A-CHMINACA. LC-HRMS analysis was performed using normal- and reversed-phase chromatography followed by full scan MS in positive and negative mode. MS/MS spectra of significant features were subsequently recorded in a separate run. The outcome of each workflow was evaluated by its number of significant features, peak shape quality, and the results of the multivariate statistics. Compound Discoverer as an all-in-one solution is characterized by its ease of use and seems, therefore, suitable for simple and small metabolomic studies. The two open source solutions allowed extensive customization but particularly, in the case of R, made advanced programming skills necessary. Nevertheless, both provided high flexibility and may be suitable for more complex studies and questions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7570355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75703552020-10-28 Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data Hemmer, Selina Manier, Sascha K. Fischmann, Svenja Westphal, Folker Wagmann, Lea Meyer, Markus R. Metabolites Article The evaluation of liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) raw data is a crucial step in untargeted metabolomics studies to minimize false positive findings. A variety of commercial or open source software solutions are available for such data processing. This study aims to compare three different data processing workflows (Compound Discoverer 3.1, XCMS Online combined with MetaboAnalyst 4.0, and a manually programmed tool using R) to investigate LC-HRMS data of an untargeted metabolomics study. Simple but highly standardized datasets for evaluation were prepared by incubating pHLM (pooled human liver microsomes) with the synthetic cannabinoid A-CHMINACA. LC-HRMS analysis was performed using normal- and reversed-phase chromatography followed by full scan MS in positive and negative mode. MS/MS spectra of significant features were subsequently recorded in a separate run. The outcome of each workflow was evaluated by its number of significant features, peak shape quality, and the results of the multivariate statistics. Compound Discoverer as an all-in-one solution is characterized by its ease of use and seems, therefore, suitable for simple and small metabolomic studies. The two open source solutions allowed extensive customization but particularly, in the case of R, made advanced programming skills necessary. Nevertheless, both provided high flexibility and may be suitable for more complex studies and questions. MDPI 2020-09-21 /pmc/articles/PMC7570355/ /pubmed/32967365 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo10090378 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hemmer, Selina
Manier, Sascha K.
Fischmann, Svenja
Westphal, Folker
Wagmann, Lea
Meyer, Markus R.
Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title_full Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title_fullStr Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title_short Comparison of Three Untargeted Data Processing Workflows for Evaluating LC-HRMS Metabolomics Data
title_sort comparison of three untargeted data processing workflows for evaluating lc-hrms metabolomics data
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7570355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32967365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/metabo10090378
work_keys_str_mv AT hemmerselina comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata
AT maniersaschak comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata
AT fischmannsvenja comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata
AT westphalfolker comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata
AT wagmannlea comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata
AT meyermarkusr comparisonofthreeuntargeteddataprocessingworkflowsforevaluatinglchrmsmetabolomicsdata