4.6 Article

Comprehensive comparison of in silico MS/MS fragmentation tools of the CASMI contest: database boosting is needed to achieve 93% accuracy

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMINFORMATICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13321-017-0219-x

关键词

Compound identification; Mass spectrometry; Structure elucidation; In silico fragmentation; MS/MS; Metabolomics

资金

  1. NSF MCB [1139644]
  2. NIH [P20 HL113452, U24 DK097154, 7R01HL09135/-706]
  3. American Heart Association [15SDG25760020]
  4. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation)
  5. Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung (BMBF, the Federal Ministry for Education and Research)
  6. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  7. Direct For Biological Sciences [1139644] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In mass spectrometry-based untargeted metabolomics, rarely more than 30% of the compounds are identified. Without the true identity of these molecules it is impossible to draw conclusions about the biological mechanisms, pathway relationships and provenance of compounds. The only way at present to address this discrepancy is to use in silico fragmentation software to identify unknown compounds by comparing and ranking theoretical MS/MS fragmentations from target structures to experimental tandem mass spectra (MS/MS). We compared the performance of four publicly available in silico fragmentation algorithms (MetFragCL, CFM-ID, MAGMa+ and MS-FINDER) that participated in the 2016 CASMI challenge. We found that optimizing the use of metadata, weighting factors and the manner of combining different tools eventually defined the ultimate outcomes of each method. We comprehensively analysed how outcomes of different tools could be combined and reached a final success rate of 93% for the training data, and 87% for the challenge data, using a combination of MAGMa+, CFM-ID and compound importance information along with MS/MS matching. Matching MS/MS spectra against the MS/MS libraries without using any in silico tool yielded 60% correct hits, showing that the use of in silico methods is still important.

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

4.6
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