Igor Nikolskiy1, Gary Siuzdak1, Gary J Patti2. 1. Department of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA, Scripps Center for Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry, Departments of Chemistry, Molecular and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA and Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. 2. Department of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA, Scripps Center for Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry, Departments of Chemistry, Molecular and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA and Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA Department of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA, Scripps Center for Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry, Departments of Chemistry, Molecular and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA and Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA Department of Genetics, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA, Scripps Center for Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry, Departments of Chemistry, Molecular and Computational Biology, The Scripps Research Institute, 10550 North Torrey Pines Road, La Jolla, California 92037, USA and Department of Chemistry, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The goal of large-scale metabolite profiling is to compare the relative concentrations of as many metabolites extracted from biological samples as possible. This is typically accomplished by measuring the abundances of thousands of ions with high-resolution and high mass accuracy mass spectrometers. Although the data from these instruments provide a comprehensive fingerprint of each sample, identifying the structures of the thousands of detected ions is still challenging and time intensive. An alternative, less-comprehensive approach is to use triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass spectrometry to analyze predetermined sets of metabolites (typically fewer than several hundred). This is done using authentic standards to develop QqQ experiments that specifically detect only the targeted metabolites, with the advantage that the need for ion identification after profiling is eliminated. RESULTS: Here, we propose a framework to extend the application of QqQ mass spectrometers to large-scale metabolite profiling. We aim to provide a foundation for designing QqQ multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) experiments for each of the 82 696 metabolites in the METLIN metabolite database. First, we identify common fragmentation products from the experimental fragmentation data in METLIN. Then, we model the likelihoods of each precursor structure in METLIN producing each common fragmentation product. With these likelihood estimates, we select ensembles of common fragmentation products that minimize our uncertainty about metabolite identities. We demonstrate encouraging performance and, based on our results, we suggest how our method can be integrated with future work to develop large-scale MRM experiments. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our predictions, Supplementary results, and the code for estimating likelihoods and selecting ensembles of fragmentation reactions are made available on the lab website at http://pattilab.wustl.edu/FragPred.
MOTIVATION: The goal of large-scale metabolite profiling is to compare the relative concentrations of as many metabolites extracted from biological samples as possible. This is typically accomplished by measuring the abundances of thousands of ions with high-resolution and high mass accuracy mass spectrometers. Although the data from these instruments provide a comprehensive fingerprint of each sample, identifying the structures of the thousands of detected ions is still challenging and time intensive. An alternative, less-comprehensive approach is to use triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass spectrometry to analyze predetermined sets of metabolites (typically fewer than several hundred). This is done using authentic standards to develop QqQ experiments that specifically detect only the targeted metabolites, with the advantage that the need for ion identification after profiling is eliminated. RESULTS: Here, we propose a framework to extend the application of QqQ mass spectrometers to large-scale metabolite profiling. We aim to provide a foundation for designing QqQ multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) experiments for each of the 82 696 metabolites in the METLIN metabolite database. First, we identify common fragmentation products from the experimental fragmentation data in METLIN. Then, we model the likelihoods of each precursor structure in METLIN producing each common fragmentation product. With these likelihood estimates, we select ensembles of common fragmentation products that minimize our uncertainty about metabolite identities. We demonstrate encouraging performance and, based on our results, we suggest how our method can be integrated with future work to develop large-scale MRM experiments. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our predictions, Supplementary results, and the code for estimating likelihoods and selecting ensembles of fragmentation reactions are made available on the lab website at http://pattilab.wustl.edu/FragPred.
Authors: Mohit Jain; Roland Nilsson; Sonia Sharma; Nikhil Madhusudhan; Toshimori Kitami; Amanda L Souza; Ran Kafri; Marc W Kirschner; Clary B Clish; Vamsi K Mootha Journal: Science Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Lars J Kangas; Thomas O Metz; Giorgis Isaac; Brian T Schrom; Bojana Ginovska-Pangovska; Luning Wang; Li Tan; Robert R Lewis; John H Miller Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Sunil U Bajad; Wenyun Lu; Elizabeth H Kimball; Jie Yuan; Celeste Peterson; Joshua D Rabinowitz Journal: J Chromatogr A Date: 2006-06-06 Impact factor: 4.759
Authors: L Mark Hall; Lowell H Hall; Tzipporah M Kertesz; Dennis W Hill; Thomas R Sharp; Edward Z Oblak; Ying W Dong; David S Wishart; Ming-Hui Chen; David F Grant Journal: J Chem Inf Model Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 4.956
Authors: Stephen Barnes; H Paul Benton; Krista Casazza; Sara J Cooper; Xiangqin Cui; Xiuxia Du; Jeffrey Engler; Janusz H Kabarowski; Shuzhao Li; Wimal Pathmasiri; Jeevan K Prasain; Matthew B Renfrow; Hemant K Tiwari Journal: J Mass Spectrom Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 1.982
Authors: Yeow-Kuan Chong; Chi-Chun Ho; Shui-Yee Leung; Susanna K P Lau; Patrick C Y Woo Journal: Comput Struct Biotechnol J Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 7.271
Authors: Jonathan L Spalding; Kevin Cho; Nathaniel G Mahieu; Igor Nikolskiy; Elizabeth M Llufrio; Stephen L Johnson; Gary J Patti Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 6.986