ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2015
The assessment of selectivity in different Quadrupole-Orbitrap mass spectrometry acquisition modes.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A tutorial in small molecule identification via electrospray ionization-mass spectrometry: The practical art of structural elucidation.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2018Review
- Mass spectrometric strategies for the investigation of biomarkers of illicit drug use in wastewater.Mass spectrometry reviews · 2018Review
- Proposed Confidence Scale and ID Score in the Identification of Known-Unknown Compounds Using High Resolution MS Data.Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selectivity of the confirmation of identity in liquid chromatography (tandem) mass spectrometry using Q-Orbitrap instrumentation was assessed using different acquisition modes based on a representative experimental data set constructed from 108 samples, including six different matrix extracts and containing over 100 analytes each. Single stage full scan, all ion fragmentation, and product ion scanning were applied. By generating reconstructed ion chromatograms using unit mass window in targeted MS(2), selected reaction monitoring (SRM), regularly applied using triple-quadrupole instruments, was mimicked. This facilitated the comparison of single stage full scan, all ion fragmentation, (mimicked) SRM, and product ion scanning applying a mass window down to 1 ppm. Single factor Analysis of Variance was carried out on the variance (s(2)) of the mass error to determine which factors and interactions are significant parameters with respect to selectivity. We conclude that selectivity is related to the target compound (mainly the mass defect), the matrix, sample clean-up, concentration, and mass resolution. Selectivity of the different instrumental configurations was quantified by counting the number of interfering peaks observed in the chromatograms. We conclude that precursor ion selection significantly contributes to selectivity: monitoring of a single product ion at high mass accuracy with a 1 Da precursor ion window proved to be equally selective or better to monitoring two transition products in mimicked SRM. In contrast, monitoring a single fragment in all ion fragmentation mode results in significantly lower selectivity versus mimicked SRM. After a thorough inter-laboratory evaluation study, the results of this study can be used for a critical reassessment of the current identification points system and contribute to the next generation of evidence-based and robust performance criteria in residue analysis and sports doping.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.