Oihane E Albóniga1, Oskar González2, Rosa M Alonso2, Yun Xu3, Royston Goodacre3. 1. Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Barrio Sarriena s/n, Leioa, Spain. oihaneelena.alboniga@ehu.eus. 2. Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Barrio Sarriena s/n, Leioa, Spain. 3. Department of Biochemistry, Institute of Integrative Biology, University of Liverpool, Biosciences Building, Crown Street, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several software packages containing diverse algorithms are available for processing Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) chromatographic data and within these deconvolution packages different parameters settings can lead to different outcomes. XCMS is the most widely used peak picking and deconvolution software for metabolomics, but the parameter selection can be hard for inexpert users. To solve this issue, the automatic optimization tools such as Isotopologue Parameters Optimization (IPO) can be extremely helpful. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the suitability of IPO as a tool for XCMS parameters optimization and compare the results with those manually obtained by an exhaustive examination of the LC-MS characteristics and performance. METHODS: Raw HPLC-TOF-MS data from two types of biological samples (liver and plasma) analysed in both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes from three groups of piglets were processed with XCMS using parameters optimized following two different approaches: IPO and Manual. The outcomes were compared to determine the advantages and disadvantages of using each method. RESULTS: IPO processing produced the higher number of repeatable (%RSD < 20) and significant features for all data sets and allowed the different piglet groups to be distinguished. Nevertheless, on multivariate level, similar clustering results were obtained by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) when applied to IPO and manual matrices. CONCLUSION: IPO is a useful optimization tool that helps in choosing the appropriate parameters. It works well on data with a good LC-MS performance but the lack of such adequate data can result in unrealistic parameter settings, which might require further investigation and manual tuning. On the contrary, manual selection criteria requires deeper knowledge on LC-MS, programming language and XCMS parameter interpretation, but allows a better fine-tuning of the parameters, and thus more robust deconvolution.
INTRODUCTION: Several software packages containing diverse algorithms are available for processing Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) chromatographic data and within these deconvolution packages different parameters settings can lead to different outcomes. XCMS is the most widely used peak picking and deconvolution software for metabolomics, but the parameter selection can be hard for inexpert users. To solve this issue, the automatic optimization tools such as Isotopologue Parameters Optimization (IPO) can be extremely helpful. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the suitability of IPO as a tool for XCMS parameters optimization and compare the results with those manually obtained by an exhaustive examination of the LC-MS characteristics and performance. METHODS: Raw HPLC-TOF-MS data from two types of biological samples (liver and plasma) analysed in both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes from three groups of piglets were processed with XCMS using parameters optimized following two different approaches: IPO and Manual. The outcomes were compared to determine the advantages and disadvantages of using each method. RESULTS: IPO processing produced the higher number of repeatable (%RSD < 20) and significant features for all data sets and allowed the different piglet groups to be distinguished. Nevertheless, on multivariate level, similar clustering results were obtained by Principal Component Analysis (PCA) when applied to IPO and manual matrices. CONCLUSION: IPO is a useful optimization tool that helps in choosing the appropriate parameters. It works well on data with a good LC-MS performance but the lack of such adequate data can result in unrealistic parameter settings, which might require further investigation and manual tuning. On the contrary, manual selection criteria requires deeper knowledge on LC-MS, programming language and XCMS parameter interpretation, but allows a better fine-tuning of the parameters, and thus more robust deconvolution.
Keywords:
Data treatment; IPO; LC–MS; Metabolomics; XCMS
Authors: Warwick B Dunn; David Broadhurst; Paul Begley; Eva Zelena; Sue Francis-McIntyre; Nadine Anderson; Marie Brown; Joshau D Knowles; Antony Halsall; John N Haselden; Andrew W Nicholls; Ian D Wilson; Douglas B Kell; Royston Goodacre Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Sophie H Narath; Selma I Mautner; Eva Svehlikova; Bernd Schultes; Thomas R Pieber; Frank M Sinner; Edgar Gander; Gunnar Libiseller; Michael G Schimek; Harald Sourij; Christoph Magnes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anne Grimbs; Abhinandan Shrestha; Ahmed S D Rezk; Sergio Grimbs; Inamullah Hakeem Said; Hartwig Schepker; Marc-Thorsten Hütt; Dirk C Albach; Klaudia Brix; Nikolai Kuhnert; Matthias S Ullrich Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2017-04-13 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Colin J B Harvey; Mancheng Tang; Ulrich Schlecht; Joe Horecka; Curt R Fischer; Hsiao-Ching Lin; Jian Li; Brian Naughton; James Cherry; Molly Miranda; Yong Fuga Li; Angela M Chu; James R Hennessy; Gergana A Vandova; Diane Inglis; Raeka S Aiyar; Lars M Steinmetz; Ronald W Davis; Marnix H Medema; Elizabeth Sattely; Chaitan Khosla; Robert P St Onge; Yi Tang; Maureen E Hillenmeyer Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: David Broadhurst; Royston Goodacre; Stacey N Reinke; Julia Kuligowski; Ian D Wilson; Matthew R Lewis; Warwick B Dunn Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Daniel Stoessel; Jan-Patrick Stellmann; Anne Willing; Birte Behrens; Sina C Rosenkranz; Sibylle C Hodecker; Klarissa H Stürner; Stefanie Reinhardt; Sabine Fleischer; Christian Deuschle; Walter Maetzler; Daniela Berg; Christoph Heesen; Dirk Walther; Nicolas Schauer; Manuel A Friese; Ole Pless Journal: Front Hum Neurosci Date: 2018-06-04 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Scott J Walmsley; Jingshu Guo; Paari Murugan; Christopher J Weight; Jinhua Wang; Peter W Villalta; Robert J Turesky Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 6.986