Back

qg: Configuration-Driven, Multi-Vendor Acquisition Queue Generation with Reproducible Run-Order and QC Control for Mass Spectrometry

Wolski, W. E.; Schwarz, L.; Trachsel, C.; Zanella, M.; Riedi, C.; Schlapbach, R.; Othman, A.; Tuerker, C.; Nanni, P.; Panse, C.

2026-07-09 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.07.03.736300 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mass spectrometry laboratories must turn lists of submitted samples into acquisition queues. The run order and the placement of quality-control (QC) injections determine whether a design controls batch effects and signal drift, and whether those effects stay correctable afterward. Yet operators usually set them by hand in vendor worklist editors that neither randomize run order nor offer configurable, pattern-driven QC. We present *qg*, an open-source tool that builds acquisition queues with systematic run-order handling: four run-order modes (none, simple, blocked/randomized-complete-block, and group-uniform blocked), pattern-driven QC and standard injections, and sampler- and plate-aware positioning. Unlike plate-design tools that stop at a generic sample sheet, *qg* writes the native vendor acquisition file directly, for three instrument ecosystems (Thermo Fisher XCalibur, Axel Semrau Chronos, Bruker HyStar) across proteomics, metabolomics, and lipidomics. It separates a small, stateless generation pipeline from a declarative configuration layer, so a laboratory adapts instruments, QC patterns, layouts, and naming by editing version-controlled configuration through a validating editor rather than changing code. *qg* runs from a reactive web interface or a scripted command-line interface, integrated with a LIMS (B-Fabric) or standalone from uploaded tables; randomized runs record their seed and reproduce from exported parameters. On an unbalanced design, group-uniform blocked randomization spreads biological groups evenly across acquisition time, whereas textbook block randomization leaves a tail of the largest group and can track acquisition time worse than a plain shuffle. *qg* is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
22.9%
2
Nature Methods
385 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
15.4%
3
Journal of Proteome Research
234 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
6.9%
4
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 27%
5.7%
50% of probability mass above
5
Molecular & Cellular Proteomics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.0%
6
Analytical Chemistry
218 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
4.5%
7
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 30%
4.4%
8
Cell Systems
201 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.1%
9
Nature Biotechnology
172 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.6%
10
Molecular Systems Biology
162 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
GigaScience
212 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
12
Journal of Molecular Biology
232 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
13
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 16%
1.4%
15
BMC Bioinformatics
457 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
16
Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.9%
18
PROTEOMICS
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
19
Wellcome Open Research
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Patterns
78 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
21
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
22
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%