MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107954317 · doi:10.1074/mcp.m112.027078

Design, Implementation and Multisite Evaluation of a System Suitability Protocol for the Quantitative Assessment of Instrument Performance in Liquid Chromatography-Multiple Reaction Monitoring-MS (LC-MRM-MS)

2013· article· en· W2107954317 on OpenAlexafffund
Susan E. Abbatiello, D.R. Mani, Birgit Schilling, Brendan MacLean, Lisa J. Zimmerman, Xinmei Feng, Michael P. Cusack, Nell Sedransk, Steven C. Hall, Terri A. Addona, Nathan G. Dodder, Jason M. Held, Victoria Hedrick, Halina D. Inerowicz, Angela Jackson, Hasmik Keshishian, J.W. Kim, John S. Lyssand, Catherine Riley, Paul A. Rudnick, Paweł Sadowski, Kent Shaddox, Daniela M. Tomazela, Åsa Wåhlander, Sofia Waldemarson, Corbin A. Whitwell, Christopher R. Kinsinger, Mehdi Mesri, Christoph H. Borchers, Charles R. Buck, Bradford W. Gibson, D.C. Liebler, Michael J. MacCoss, Thomas A. Neubert, Amanda G. Paulovich, Fred E. Regnier, Paul Tempst, M. Wang, Steven A. Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular & Cellular Proteomics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical Chemistry and Chromatography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillBroad InstituteLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of ArizonaUniversity of WashingtonSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt UniversityBuck Institute for Research on AgingPurdue UniversityU.S. Public Health ServiceCanary FoundationNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMassachusetts General HospitalMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterYork UniversityNational Institute of Standards and TechnologyVanderbilt University
KeywordsAnalyteSelected reaction monitoringChromatographyTriple quadrupole mass spectrometerCoefficient of variationChemistryMultiplexMass spectrometryProtocol (science)Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Tandem mass spectrometryBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mass spectrometry coupled with stable isotope dilution (SID) and liquid chromatography (LC) is increasingly used in biological and clinical studies for precise and reproducible quantification of peptides and proteins in complex sample matrices. Robust LC-SID-MRM-MS-based assays that can be replicated across laboratories and ultimately in clinical laboratory settings require standardized protocols to demonstrate that the analysis platforms are performing adequately. We developed a system suitability protocol (SSP), which employs a predigested mixture of six proteins, to facilitate performance evaluation of LC-SID-MRM-MS instrument platforms, configured with nanoflow-LC systems interfaced to triple quadrupole mass spectrometers. The SSP was designed for use with low multiplex analyses as well as high multiplex approaches when software-driven scheduling of data acquisition is required. Performance was assessed by monitoring of a range of chromatographic and mass spectrometric metrics including peak width, chromatographic resolution, peak capacity, and the variability in peak area and analyte retention time (RT) stability. The SSP, which was evaluated in 11 laboratories on a total of 15 different instruments, enabled early diagnoses of LC and MS anomalies that indicated suboptimal LC-MRM-MS performance. The observed range in variation of each of the metrics scrutinized serves to define the criteria for optimized LC-SID-MRM-MS platforms for routine use, with pass/fail criteria for system suitability performance measures defined as peak area coefficient of variation <0.15, peak width coefficient of variation <0.15, standard deviation of RT <0.15 min (9 s), and the RT drift <0.5min (30 s). The deleterious effect of a marginally performing LC-SID-MRM-MS system on the limit of quantification (LOQ) in targeted quantitative assays illustrates the use and need for a SSP to establish robust and reliable system performance. Use of a SSP helps to ensure that analyte quantification measurements can be replicated with good precision within and across multiple laboratories and should facilitate more widespread use of MRM-MS technology by the basic biomedical and clinical laboratory research communities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular & Cellular ProteomicsSame topicAnalytical Chemistry and ChromatographyFrench-language works237,207