4.8 Article

Bar Coding MS2 Spectra for Metabolite Identification

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 88, 期 5, 页码 2538-2542

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b04925

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 ES022181, R21 CA191097, R21 HD081531]
  2. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  3. Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation
  4. Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolite identifications are most frequently achieved in untargeted metabolomics by matching precursor mass and full, high-resolution MS2 spectra to metabolite databases and standards. Here we considered an alternative approach for establishing metabolite identifications that does not rely on full, high-resolution MS2 spectra. First, we select mass-to-charge regions containing the most informative metabolite fragments and designate them as bins. We then translate each metabolite fragmentation pattern into a binary code by assigning I's to bins containing fragments and 0's to bins without fragments. With 20 bins, this binary-code system is capable of distinguishing 96% of the compounds in the METLIN MS2 library. A major advantage of the approach is that it extends untargeted metabolomics to low-resolution triple quadrupole (QqQ) instruments, which are typically less expensive and more robust than other types of mass spectrometers. We demonstrate a method of acquiring MS2 data in which the third quadrupole of a QqQinstrument cycles over 20 wide isolation windows (coinciding with the location and width of our bins) for each precursor mass selected by the first quadrupole. Operating the QqQinstrument in this mode yields diagnostic bar codes for each precursor mass that can be matched to the bar codes of metabolite standards. Furthermore, our data suggest that using low-resolution bar codes enables QqQinstruments to make MS2-based identifications in untargeted metabolomics with a specificity and sensitivity that is competitive to high-resolution time-of-flight technologies.

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

4.8
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