Back

Implications of sample treatment on characterization of the riverine environmental metabolome

Nelson, A. R.; Toyoda, J.; Chu, R. K.; Tolic, N.; Garayburu-Caruso, V.; Saup, C. M.; Renteria, L.; Wells, J. R.; Stegen, J.; Wilkins, M. J.; Danczak, R. E.

2021-09-03 ecology
10.1101/2021.09.02.458736 bioRxiv
Show abstract

High-resolution mass spectrometry techniques are widely used in the environmental sciences to characterize natural organic matter and, when utilizing these instruments, researchers must make multiple decisions regarding sample pre-treatment and the instrument ionization mode. To identify how these choices alter organic matter characterization and resulting conclusions, we analyzed a collection of 17 riverine samples from East River, CO (USA) under four PPL-based Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) treatment and electrospray ionization polarity (e.g., positive and negative) combinations: SPE (+), SPE (-), non-SPE (-), and non-SPE (+). The greatest number of formula assignments were achieved with SPE-treated samples due to the removal of compounds that could interfere with ionization. Furthermore, the SPE (-) treatment captured the most formulas across the widest chemical compound diversity. In addition to a reduced number of assigned formulas, the non-SPE datasets resulted in altered thermodynamic interpretations that could cascade into incomplete assumptions about the availability of organic matter pools for microbial heterotrophic respiration. Thus, we infer that the SPE (-) treatment is the best single method for characterizing environmental organic matter pools unless the focus is on lipid-like compounds, in which case we recommend a combination of SPE (-) and SPE (+) to adequately characterize these molecules. SynopsisWe provide data-driven sample treatment and ionization mode recommendations to researchers who aim to use high-resolution mass spectrometry to characterize environmental organic matter. Abstract Art O_FIG_DISPLAY_L [Figure 1] M_FIG_DISPLAY C_FIG_DISPLAY

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account 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.