Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26834843›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2016

MetFrag relaunched: incorporating strategies beyond in silico fragmentation.

Christoph Ruttkies, Emma L Schymanski, Sebastian Wolf, Juliane Hollender, Steffen Neumann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 392 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
392citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

392 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multi-Targeted Neuroprotection byInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. In Vivo Characterization of theJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

332 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Christoph RuttkiesLeibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Department of Stress and Developmental Biology, Weinberg 3, 06120 Halle, Germany.
Emma L SchymanskiEawag: Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland.
Sebastian WolfLeibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Department of Stress and Developmental Biology, Weinberg 3, 06120 Halle, Germany ; R&D NMR Software, Bruker BioSpin GmbH, Silberstreifen, 76287 Rheinstetten, Germany.
Juliane HollenderEawag: Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Science and Technology, Überlandstrasse 133, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland ; Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland.
Steffen NeumannLeibniz Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Department of Stress and Developmental Biology, Weinberg 3, 06120 Halle, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe in silico fragmenter MetFrag, launched in 2010, was one of the first approaches combining compound database searching and fragmentation prediction for small molecule identification from tandem mass spectrometry data. Since then many new approaches have evolved, as has MetFrag itself. This article details the latest developments to MetFrag and its use in small molecule identification since the original publication.

resultsMetFrag has gone through algorithmic and scoring refinements. New features include the retrieval of reference, data source and patent information via ChemSpider and PubChem web services, as well as InChIKey filtering to reduce candidate redundancy due to stereoisomerism. Candidates can be filtered or scored differently based on criteria like occurence of certain elements and/or substructures prior to fragmentation, or presence in so-called "suspect lists". Retention time information can now be calculated either within MetFrag with a sufficient amount of user-provided retention times, or incorporated separately as "user-defined scores" to be included in candidate ranking. The changes to MetFrag were evaluated on the original dataset as well as a dataset of 473 merged high resolution tandem mass spectra (HR-MS/MS) and compared with another open source in silico fragmenter, CFM-ID. Using HR-MS/MS information only, MetFrag2.2 and CFM-ID had 30 and 43 Top 1 ranks, respectively, using PubChem as a database. Including reference and retention information in MetFrag2.2 improved this to 420 and 336 Top 1 ranks with ChemSpider and PubChem (89 and 71 %), respectively, and even up to 343 Top 1 ranks (PubChem) when combining with CFM-ID. The optimal parameters and weights were verified using three additional datasets of 824 merged HR-MS/MS spectra in total. Further examples are given to demonstrate flexibility of the enhanced features.

conclusionsIn many cases additional information is available from the experimental context to add to small molecule identification, which is especially useful where the mass spectrum alone is not sufficient for candidate selection from a large number of candidates. The results achieved with MetFrag2.2 clearly show the benefit of considering this additional information. The new functions greatly enhance the chance of identification success and have been incorporated into a command line interface in a flexible way designed to be integrated into high throughput workflows. Feedback on the command line version of MetFrag2.2 available at http://c-ruttkies.github.io/MetFrag/ is welcome.

Indexed as

Compound identificationHigh resolution mass spectrometryIn silico fragmentationMetabolomicsStructure elucidation

Identifiers

PMID26834843
PMCPMC4732001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.