Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35629930›Full record

ArticleMetabolites2022

Towards Unbiased Evaluation of Ionization Performance in LC-HRMS Metabolomics Method Development.

Carsten Jaeger, Jan Lisec

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolites, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

2 authors.

Carsten JaegerBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -Prüfung (BAM), Department 1 Analytical Chemistry, Reference Materials, Richard-Willstätter-Straße 11, 12489 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2192-1792
Jan LisecBundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -Prüfung (BAM), Department 1 Analytical Chemistry, Reference Materials, Richard-Willstätter-Straße 11, 12489 Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1220-2286

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As metabolomics increasingly finds its way from basic science into applied and regulatory environments, analytical demands on nontargeted mass spectrometric detection methods continue to rise. In addition to improved chemical comprehensiveness, current developments aim at enhanced robustness and repeatability to allow long-term, inter-study, and meta-analyses. Comprehensive metabolomics relies on electrospray ionization (ESI) as the most versatile ionization technique, and recent liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) instrumentation continues to overcome technical limitations that have hindered the adoption of ESI for applications in the past. Still, developing and standardizing nontargeted ESI methods and instrumental setups remains costly in terms of time and required chemicals, as large panels of metabolite standards are needed to reflect biochemical diversity. In this paper, we investigated in how far a nontargeted pilot experiment, consisting only of a few measurements of a test sample dilution series and comprehensive statistical analysis, can replace conventional targeted evaluation procedures. To examine this potential, two instrumental ESI ion source setups were compared, reflecting a common scenario in practical method development. Two types of feature evaluations were performed, (a) summary statistics solely involving feature intensity values, and (b) analyses additionally including chemical interpretation. Results were compared in detail to a targeted evaluation of a large metabolite standard panel. We reflect on the advantages and shortcomings of both strategies in the context of current harmonization initiatives in the metabolomics field.

Indexed as

chemical classificationelectrospray ionizationfeature statisticsliquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometrymethod developmentmethod harmonizationnontargeted analysisquality control

Identifiers

PMID35629930
PMCPMC9144264

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.