High tolerance to instrument drifts by differential chemical isotope labeling LC‐MS: A case study of the effect of LC leak in long‐term sample runs on quantitative metabolome analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Metabolomics study of a biological system often involves the analysis of many comparative samples over a period of several days or weeks. This process of long‐term sample runs can encounter unexpected instrument drifts such as small leaks in liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry (LC‐MS), degradation of column performance, and MS signal intensity change. A robust analytical method should ideally tolerate these instrumental drifts as much as possible. In this work, we report a case study to demonstrate the high tolerance of differential chemical isotope labeling (CIL) LC‐MS method for quantitative metabolome analysis. In a study of using a rat model to examine the metabolome changes during rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease development and treatment, over 468 samples were analyzed over a period of 15 days in three batches. During the sample runs, a small leak in LC was discovered after a batch of analyses was completed. Reanalysis of these samples was not an option as sample amounts were limited. To overcome the problem caused by the small leak, we applied a method of retention time correction to the LC‐MS data to align peak pairs from different runs with different degrees of leak, followed by peak ratio calculation and analysis. Herein, we illustrate that using 12C‐/13C‐peak pair intensity values in CIL LC‐MS as a measurement of concentration changes in different samples could tolerate the signal drifts, while using the absolute intensity values (ie, 12C‐peak as in conventional LC‐MS) was not as reliable. We hope that the case study illustrated and the method of overcoming the small‐leak‐caused signal drifts can be helpful to others who may encounter this kind of situation in long‐term sample runs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".