Back

Analyzing Assay Specificity in Metabolomics using Unique Ion Signature Simulations

Shanthamoorthy, P.; Young, A.; Rost, H.

2021-07-07 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.03.19.434579 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Targeted, untargeted and data-independent acquisition (DIA) metabolomics workflows are often hampered by ambiguous identification based on either MS1 information alone or relatively few MS2 fragment ions. While DIA methods have been popularized in proteomics, it is less clear whether they are suitable for metabolomics workflows due to their large precursor isolation windows and complex co-isolation patterns. Here, we quantitatively investigate the conditions necessary for unique metabolite detection in complex backgrounds using precursor and fragment ion mass-to-charge separation, comparing three benchmarked MS methods (MS1, MRM, DIA). Our simulations show that DIA outperformed MS1-only and MRM-based methods with regards to specificity by a factor of ~2.8-fold and ~1.8-fold, respectively. Additionally, we show that our results are not dependent on the number of transitions used or the complexity of the background matrix. Finally, we show that collision energy is an important factor in unambiguous detection and that a single collision energy setting per compound cannot achieve optimal pairwise differentiation of compounds. Our analysis demonstrates the power of using both high resolution precursor and high resolution fragment ion m/z for unambiguous compound detection. This work also establishes DIA as an emerging MS acquisition method with high selectivity for metabolomics, outperforming both DDA and MRM with regards to unique compound identification potential. O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=132 SRC="FIGDIR/small/434579v2_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (23K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@142b100org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1728a1corg.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@c953c8org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@19b856a_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.