Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36043939›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2022

How Well Can We Predict Mass Spectra from Structures? Benchmarking Competitive Fragmentation Modeling for Metabolite Identification on Untrained Tandem Mass Spectra.

Parker Ladd Bremer, Arpana Vaniya, Tobias Kind, Shunyang Wang, Oliver Fiehn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. BitterMasS: Predicting Bitterness from Mass Spectra.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
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.

Parker Ladd BremerDepartment of Chemistry, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States.
Arpana VaniyaWest Coast Metabolomics Center for Compound Identification, UC Davis Genome Center, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States.
Tobias KindWest Coast Metabolomics Center for Compound Identification, UC Davis Genome Center, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States.
Shunyang WangDepartment of Chemistry, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States.
Oliver FiehnWest Coast Metabolomics Center for Compound Identification, UC Davis Genome Center, University of California Davis, Davis, California 95616, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6261-8928

Funding

West Coast Metabolomics Center for Compound IdentificationU2CES030158 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI FIEHN, OLIVER · 2018 to 2021
$4.1M
NIEHS NIH HHS U2C ES030158
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Competitive Fragmentation Modeling for Metabolite Identification (CFM-ID) is a machine learning tool to predict in silico tandem mass spectra (MS/MS) for known or suspected metabolites for which chemical reference standards are not available. As a machine learning tool, it relies on both an underlying statistical model and an explicit training set that encompasses experimental mass spectra for specific compounds. Such mass spectra depend on specific parameters such as collision energies, instrument types, and adducts which are accumulated in libraries. Yet, ultimately prediction tools that are meant to cover wide expanses of entities must be validated on cases that were not included in the initial training and testing sets. Hence, we here benchmarked the performance of CFM-ID 4.0 to correctly predict MS/MS spectra for spectra that were not included in the CFM-ID training set and for different mass spectrometry conditions. We used 609,456 experimental tandem spectra from the NIST20 mass spectral library that were newly added to the previous NIST17 library version. We found that CFM-ID's highest energy prediction output would maximize the capacity for library generation. Matching the experimental collision energy with CFM-ID's prediction energy produced the best results, even for HCD-Orbitrap instruments. For benzenoids, better MS/MS predictions were achieved than for heterocyclic compounds. However, when exploring CFM-ID's performance on 8,305 compounds at 40 eV HCD-Orbitrap collision energy, >90% of the 20/80 split test compounds showed <700 MS/MS similarity score. Instead of a stand-alone tool, CFM-ID 4.0 might be useful to boost candidate structures in the greater context of identification workflows.

Indexed as

Tandem Mass SpectrometryGene LibraryModels, Statistical

Identifiers

PMID36043939
PMCPMC11521105

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.