Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36469190›Full record

ReviewMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2022

Good practices and recommendations for using and benchmarking computational metabolomics metabolite annotation tools.

Niek F de Jonge, Kevin Mildau, David Meijer, Joris J R Louwen, Christoph Bueschl, Florian Huber, Justin J J van der Hooft

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing 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

58 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Annotating Tandem Mass Spectra in Metabolomics with DreaMS and MassSpecGym.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2027
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Confrontations betweenApplied and environmental microbiology · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Niek F de JongeBioinformatics Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3054-6210
Kevin MildauDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Biochemical Network Analysis Lab, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-0890
David MeijerBioinformatics Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6406-4394
Joris J R LouwenBioinformatics Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4887-9109
Christoph BueschlDepartment of Analytical Chemistry, Biochemical Network Analysis Lab, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1729-9785
Florian HuberCentre for Digitalization and Digitality (ZDD), University of Applied Sciences Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3535-9406
Justin J J van der HooftBioinformatics Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands. justin.vanderhooft@wur.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-9340-5511

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUntargeted metabolomics approaches based on mass spectrometry obtain comprehensive profiles of complex biological samples. However, on average only 10% of the molecules can be annotated. This low annotation rate hampers biochemical interpretation and effective comparison of metabolomics studies. Furthermore, de novo structural characterization of mass spectral data remains a complicated and time-intensive process. Recently, the field of computational metabolomics has gained traction and novel methods have started to enable large-scale and reliable metabolite annotation. Molecular networking and machine learning-based in-silico annotation tools have been shown to greatly assist metabolite characterization in diverse fields such as clinical metabolomics and natural product discovery. AIM OF REVIEW: We highlight recent advances in computational metabolite annotation workflows with a special focus on their evaluation and comparison with other tools. Whilst the progress is substantial and promising, we also argue that inconsistencies in benchmarking different tools hamper users from selecting the most appropriate and promising method for their research. We summarize benchmarking strategies of the different tools and outline several recommendations for benchmarking and comparing novel tools. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: This review focuses on recent advances in mass spectral library-based and machine learning-supported metabolite annotation workflows. We discuss large-scale library matching and analogue search, the current bloom of mass spectral similarity scores, and how molecular networking has changed the field. In addition, the potentials and challenges of machine learning-supported metabolite annotation workflows are highlighted. Overall, recent developments in computational metabolomics have started to fundamentally change metabolomics workflows, and we expect that as a community we will be able to overcome current method performance ambiguities and annotation bottlenecks.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingMetabolomicsMachine LearningMass SpectrometryBenchmarkingMachine learningMass fragmentation spectraMass spectrometryMetabolite annotation and identificationUntargeted metabolomics

Identifiers

PMID36469190
PMCPMC9722809

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.