IsoMS: Automated Processing of LC-MS Data Generated by a Chemical Isotope Labeling Metabolomics Platform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A chemical isotope labeling or isotope coded derivatization (ICD) metabolomics platform uses a chemical derivatization method to introduce a mass tag to all of the metabolites having a common functional group (e.g., amine), followed by LC-MS analysis of the labeled metabolites. To apply this platform to metabolomics studies involving quantitative analysis of different groups of samples, automated data processing is required. Herein, we report a data processing method based on the use of a mass spectral feature unique to the chemical labeling approach, i.e., any differential-isotope-labeled metabolites are detected as peak pairs with a fixed mass difference in a mass spectrum. A software tool, IsoMS, has been developed to process the raw data generated from one or multiple LC-MS runs by peak picking, peak pairing, peak-pair filtering, and peak-pair intensity ratio calculation. The same peak pairs detected from multiple samples are then aligned to produce a CSV file that contains the metabolite information and peak ratios relative to a control (e.g., a pooled sample). This file can be readily exported for further data and statistical analysis, which is illustrated in an example of comparing the metabolomes of human urine samples collected before and after drinking coffee. To demonstrate that this method is reliable for data processing, five (13)C2-/(12)C2-dansyl labeled metabolite standards were analyzed by LC-MS. IsoMS was able to detect these metabolites correctly. In addition, in the analysis of a (13)C2-/(12)C2-dansyl labeled human urine, IsoMS detected 2044 peak pairs, and manual inspection of these peak pairs found 90 false peak pairs, representing a false positive rate of 4.4%. IsoMS for Windows running R is freely available for noncommercial use from www.mycompoundid.org/IsoMS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".