ArticleJournal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry2019
Mass Accuracy Check Using Common Background Peaks for Improving Metabolome Data Quality in Chemical Isotope Labeling LC-MS.
Article in Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 2019. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward a More Comprehensive Approach for Dissolved Organic Matter Chemical Characterization Using an Orbitrap Fusion Tribrid Mass Spectrometer Coupled with Ion and Liquid Chromatography Techniques.Analytical chemistry · 2024Article
- Mass recalibration for desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry imaging using endogenous reference ions.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Salivary metabolomic identification of biomarker candidates for oral melanoma and oral squamous cell carcinoma in dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Chemical isotope labeling (CIL) LC-MS is a highly sensitive and quantitative method for metabolome analysis. Because of a large number of peaks detectable in a sample and the need of running many samples in a metabolomics project, any significant change in mass measurement accuracy during the whole period of running samples can adversely affect the downstream peak alignment and quantitative analysis. Herein, we report a rapid method to check the mass accuracy of individual spectra in each CIL LC-MS run in order to flag up any run containing spectra with accuracy drift that falls outside the expected error. The flagged run may be re-run or discarded before merging with other runs for peak alignment and analysis. This method is based on the observation that some background signals are commonly detected in almost all spectra collected in CIL LC-MS runs. A mass accuracy check (MAC) software program has been developed to first find the common background mass peaks and then use them as mass references to calculate any mass shifts over the course of multiple sample runs. Using a metabolome dataset of 324 human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples and 35 quality control (QC) samples produced by CIL LC-MS, we show that this accuracy check method can streamline the initial raw data processing for downstream analysis in metabolomics.
Indexed as
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.