Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38556595›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2024

Handling of problematic ion chromatograms with the Automated Target Screening (ATS) workflow for unsupervised analysis of high-resolution mass spectrometry data.

Georg Braun, Martin Krauss, Stephanie Spahr, Beate I Escher

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Georg BraunDepartment of Cell Toxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany. Georg.braun@ufz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2513-9039
Martin KraussDepartment of Exposure Science, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0362-4244
Stephanie SpahrDepartment of Ecohydrology and Biogeochemistry, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3004-3162
Beate I EscherDepartment of Cell Toxicology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5304-706X
Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research · DELeibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Liquid chromatography (LC) or gas chromatography (GC) coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is a versatile analytical method for the analysis of thousands of chemical pollutants that can be found in environmental and biological samples. While the tools for handling such complex datasets have improved, there are still no fully automated workflows for targeted screening analysis. Here we present an R-based workflow that is able to cope with challenging data like noisy ion chromatograms, retention time shifts, and multiple peak patterns. The workflow can be applied to batches of HRMS data recorded after GC with electron ionization (GC-EI) and LC coupled to electrospray ionization in both negative and positive mode (LC-ESIneg/LC-ESIpos) to perform peak annotation and quantitation fully unsupervised. We used Orbitrap HRMS data of surface water extracts to compare the Automated Target Screening (ATS) workflow with data evaluations performed with the vendor software TraceFinder and the established semi-automated analysis workflow in the MZmine software. The ATS approach increased the overall evaluation performance of the peak annotation compared to the established MZmine module without the need for any post-hoc corrections. The overall accuracy increased from 0.80 to 0.86 (LC-ESIpos), from 0.77 to 0.83 (LC-ESIneg), and from 0.67 to 0.76 (GC-EI). The mean average percentage errors for quantification of ATS were around 30% compared to the manual quantification with TraceFinder. The ATS workflow enables time-efficient analysis of GC- and LC-HRMS data and accelerates and improves the applicability of target screening in studies with a large number of analytes and sample sizes without the need for manual intervention.

Indexed as

WorkflowAutomationChromatography, LiquidGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryMass SpectrometrySoftwareWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater Pollutants, ChemicalAutomationMass spectrometryMZmineTarget screeningTraceFinderWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID38556595
PMCPMC11045623
OpenAlexW4393389072

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.