Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36435841›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023

Exploring chemical space in non-targeted analysis: a proposed ChemSpace tool.

Gabrielle Black, Charles Lowe, Tarun Anumol, Jessica Bade, Kristin Favela, Yong-Lai Feng, Ann Knolhoff, Andrew Mceachran, Jamie Nuñez, Christine Fisher and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

18 authors.

Gabrielle Black *Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA. gnpecora@ucdavis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1578-742X
Charles Lowe *U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9151-6157
Tarun AnumolAgilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1030-1953
Jessica BadePacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7595-0017
Kristin FavelaSouthwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0702-8316
Yong-Lai FengExposure and Biomonitoring Division, Environmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Health Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1059-6448
Ann KnolhoffU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9733-7640
Andrew MceachranAgilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1423-330X
Jamie NuñezPacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8594-1648
Christine FisherU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5612-5281
Kathy PeterCenter for Urban Waters, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma, WA, 98421, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7379-265X
Natalia Soares QuineteDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Institute of Environment, Florida International University, North Miami, FL, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9486-2995
Jon SobusU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0740-6604
Eric SussmanMCRA LLC, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0188-7876
William WatsonSouthwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9592-2187
Samanthi WickramasekaraU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Silver Spring, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9378-9810
Antony WilliamsU.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2668-4821
Tom YoungDepartment of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7217-4753

Funding

UC Davis Environmental Health Sciences Core CenterP30ES023513 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Ameer Taha · 2015 to 2026
$26.0M
Intramural EPA EPA999999NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES023513
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-targeted analysis (NTA) using high-resolution mass spectrometry allows scientists to detect and identify a broad range of compounds in diverse matrices for monitoring exposure and toxicological evaluation without a priori chemical knowledge. NTA methods present an opportunity to describe the constituents of a sample across a multidimensional swath of chemical properties, referred to as "chemical space." Understanding and communicating which region of chemical space is extractable and detectable by an NTA workflow, however, remains challenging and non-standardized. For example, many sample processing and data analysis steps influence the types of chemicals that can be detected and identified. Accordingly, it is challenging to assess whether analyte non-detection in an NTA study indicates true absence in a sample (above a detection limit) or is a false negative driven by workflow limitations. Here, we describe the need for accessible approaches that enable chemical space mapping in NTA studies, propose a tool to address this need, and highlight the different ways in which it could be implemented in NTA workflows. We identify a suite of existing predictive and analytical tools that can be used in combination to generate scores that describe the likelihood a compound will be detected and identified by a given NTA workflow based on the predicted chemical space of that workflow. Higher scores correspond to a higher likelihood of compound detection and identification in a given workflow (based on sample extraction, data acquisition, and data analysis parameters). Lower scores indicate a lower probability of detection, even if the compound is truly present in the samples of interest. Understanding the constraints of NTA workflows can be useful for stakeholders when results from NTA studies are used in real-world applications and for NTA researchers working to improve their workflow performance. The hypothetical ChemSpaceTool suggested herein could be used in both a prospective and retrospective sense. Prospectively, the tool can be used to further curate screening libraries and set identification thresholds. Retrospectively, false detections can be filtered by the plausibility of the compound identification by the selected NTA method, increasing the confidence of unknown identifications. Lastly, this work highlights the chemometric needs to make such a tool robust and usable across a wide range of NTA disciplines and invites others who are working on various models to participate in the development of the ChemSpaceTool. Ultimately, the development of a chemical space mapping tool strives to enable further standardization of NTA by improving method transparency and communication around false detection rates, thus allowing for more direct method comparisons between studies and improved reproducibility. This, in turn, is expected to promote further widespread applications of NTA beyond research-oriented settings.

Indexed as

Retrospective StudiesMass SpectrometryProspective StudiesReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsChemical spaceCheminformaticsMass spectrometryNon-targeted analysisQuality assurance/control

Identifiers

PMID36435841
PMCPMC10010115

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.