Adduct annotation in liquid chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry to enhance compound identification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Annotation and interpretation of full scan electrospray mass spectra of metabolites is complicated by the presence of a wide variety of ions. Not only protonated, deprotonated, and neutral loss ions but also sodium, potassium, and ammonium adducts as well as oligomers are frequently observed. This diversity challenges automatic annotation and is often poorly addressed by current annotation tools. In many cases, annotation is integrated in metabolomics workflows and is based on specific chromatographic peak-picking tools. We introduce mzAdan, a nonchromatography-based multipurpose standalone application that was developed for the annotation and exploration of convolved high-resolution ESI-MS spectra. The tool annotates single or multiple accurate mass spectra using a customizable adduct annotation list and outputs a list of [M+H] + candidates. MzAdan was first tested with a collection of 408 analytes acquired with flow injection analysis. This resulted in 402 correct [M+H] + identifications and, with combinations of sodium, ammonium, and potassium adducts and water and ammonia losses within a tolerance of 10 mmu, explained close to 50% of the total ion current. False positives were monitored with mass accuracy and bias as well as chromatographic behavior which led to the identification of adducts with calcium instead of the expected potassium. MzAdan was then integrated in a workflow with XCMS for the untargeted LC-MS data analysis of a 52 metabolite standard mix and a human urine sample. The results were benchmarked against three other annotation tools, CAMERA, findMAIN, and CliqueMS: findMAIN and mzAdan consistently produced higher numbers of [M+H] + candidates compared with CliqueMS and CAMERA, especially with co-eluting metabolites. Detection of low-intensity ions and correct grouping were found to be essential for annotation performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".