Comparison of information-dependent acquisition, SWATH, and MS(All) techniques in metabolite identification study employing ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Sensitive and selective liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) analysis is a powerful and essential tool for metabolite identification in drug discovery and development. An MS(2) (or tandem, MS/MS) mass spectrum is acquired from the fragmentation of a precursor ion by multiple methods including information-dependent acquisition (IDA), SWATH (sequential window acquisition of all theoretical fragment-ion spectra), and MS(All) (also called MS(E)) techniques. We compared these three techniques in their capabilities to produce comprehensive MS(2) data by assessing both metabolite MS(2) acquisition hit rate and the quality of MS(2) spectra. Rat liver microsomal incubations from eight test compounds were analyzed with four methods (IDA, MMDF (multiple mass defect filters)-IDA, SWATH, or MS(All)) using an ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography-qudrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-Q-TOF MS) platform. A combined total of 227 drug-related materials (DRM) were detected from all eight test article incubations, and among those, 5% and 4% of DRM were not triggered for MS(2) acquisition with IDA and MMDF-IDA methods, respectively. When the same samples were spiked to an equal volume of blank rat urine (urine sample), the DRM without MS(2) acquisition increased to 29% and 18%, correspondingly. In contrast, 100% of DRM in both matrixes were subjected to MS(2) acquisition with either the SWATH or MS(All) method. However, the quality of the acquired MS(2) spectra decreased in the order of IDA, SWATH, and MS(All) methods. An average of 10, 9, and 6 out of 10 most abundant ions in MS(2) spectra were the real product ions of DRM detected in microsomal samples from IDA, SWATH, and MS(All) methods, respectively. The corresponding numbers declined to 9, 6, and 3 in the urine samples. Overall, IDA-based methods acquired qualitatively better MS(2) spectra but with a lower MS(2) acquisition hit rate than the other two methods. SWATH outperformed the MS(All) method given its better quality of MS(2) spectra with an identical MS(2) acquisition hit rate.