4.8 Article

A Statistically Rigorous Test for the Identification of Parent-Fragment Pairs in LC-MS Datasets

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 82, 期 5, 页码 1766-1778

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac902361f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [080714/Z/06/Z]
  2. Waters Corporation
  3. Wellcome Trust [080714/Z/06/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Untargeted global metabolic profiling by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry generates numerous signals that are due to unknown compounds and whose identification forms an important challenge. The analysis of metabolite fragmentation patterns, following collision-induced dissociation, provides a valuable tool for identification, but can be severely impeded by close chromatographic coelution of distinct metabolites. We propose a new algorithm for identifying related parent-fragment pairs and for distinguishing these from signals due to unrelated compounds. Unlike existing methods, our approach addresses the problem by means of a hypothesis test that is based on the distribution of the recorded ion counts, and thereby provides a statistically rigorous measure of the uncertainty involved in the classification problem. Because of technological constraints, the test is of primary use at low and intermediate ion counts, above which detector saturation causes substantial bias to the recorded ion count. The validity of the test is demonstrated through its, application to pairs of coeluting isotopologues and to known parent-fragment pairs, which results in test statistics consistent with the null distribution. The performance of the test is compared with a commonly used Pearson correlation approach and found to be considerably better (e.g., false positive rate of 6.25%, compared with a value of 50% for the correlation for perfectly coeluting ions). Because the algorithm may be used for the analysis of high-mass compounds in addition to metabolic data, we expect it to facilitate the analysis of fragmentation patterns for a wide range of analytical problems.

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