4.4 Article

Towards a universal LC-MS screening procedure - can an LIT LC-MSn screening approach and reference library be used on a quadrupole-LIT hybrid instrument?

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 66-71

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jms.2027

关键词

library; linear ion trap; LXQ; QTrap; LC-MSn

资金

  1. ThermoFisher Scientific Instruments, Dreieich, Germany
  2. GeneBio, Geneva, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In contrast to libraries with highly reproducible gas chromatography electron ionization mass spectra, current liquid chromatography (LC-MS) libraries are limited to specific instrument types. Therefore, the aim of the study was to prove whether a recently developed linear ion trap (LIT) LC-MSn screening approach and reference library can be transferred to an LC-MS/MS system with a quadrupole-LIT hybrid mass analyzer using SmileMS, a sophisticated search algorithm. The LIT reference library was built with MS2 and MS3 wideband spectra recorded on a ThermoFisher LXQ LIT with electrospray ionization in positive mode and full-scan data-dependent acquisition (DDA). Collision parameter optimizations, including different scan types and energies, were performed on an Applied Biosystems QTRAP 4000 system using electrospray ionization in positive mode and full-scan DDA. Modified library sets were generated to improve the detection of a compound by the used search algorithm. Additionally, 100 authentic human urine samples were screened by both systems for proof of applicability. In the applicability study, 533 compounds were detected by the LXQ and 477 by the QTRAP system using enhanced product ion scan and a modified database. The presented data showed that the LIT screening approach and reference library could be used successfully on a QTRAP instrument with some limitations. These should be overcome by further optimizations regarding DDA settings for better sensitivity and further library modifications to reduce spectra mismatches. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据