Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (2)
- Posterpräsentation (2)
- Vortrag (1)
Referierte Publikation
- nein (5) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Accurate mass (2)
- Compound annotation (2)
- Electrospray ionization (2)
- Mass spectrometry (2)
- Nontarget analysis (2)
- Amino acid analysis (1)
- Antibody quantification (1)
- Chemical coverage (1)
- ICP-ToF-MS (1)
- Laser Ablation/Imaging (1)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Eingeladener Vortrag
- nein (1)
Under the auspices of the Protein Analysis Working Group (PAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) a pilot study, CCQM-P216, was coordinated by the Chinese National Institute of Metrology (NIM), National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM). Eleven Metrology Institutes or Designated Institutes and the BIPM participated in the first phase of the pilot study (Part 1). The purpose of this pilot study was to develop measurement capabilities for larger proteins using a recombinant humanized IgG monoclonal antibody against Spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 (Anti-S IgG mAb) in solution. The first phase of the study was designed to employ established methods that had been previously studies by the CCQM Protein Analysis Working Group, involving the digestion of protein down to the peptide or amino acid level. The global coronavirus pandemic has also led to increased focus on antibody quantitation methods. IgG are among the immunoglobulins produced by the immune system to provide protection against SARS-CoV-2. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG can therefore be detected in samples from affected patients. Antibody tests can show whether a person has been exposed to the SARS-CoV-2, and whether or not they potentially show lasting immunity to the disease. With the constant spread of the virus and the high pressure of re-opening economies, antibody testing plays a critical role in the fight against COVID-19 by helping healthcare professionals to identify individuals who have developed an immune response, either via vaccination or exposure to the virus. Many countries have launched large-scale antibody testing for COVID-19. The development of measurement standards for the antibody detection of SARS-CoV-2 is critically important to deal with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, the SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody is being used as a model system to build capacity in methods that can be used in antibody quantification. Amino acid reference values with corresponding expanded uncertainty of 36.10 ± 1.55 mg/kg, 38.75 ± 1.45 mg/kg, 18.46 ± 0.78 mg/kg, 16.20 ± 0.67 mg/kg and 30.61 ± 1.30 mg/kg have been established for leucine, valine, phenylalanine, isoleucine and proline, respectively. Agreement between nearly all laboratories was achieved for the amino acid analysis within 2 to 2.5 %, with one participant achieving markedly higher results due to a technical issue found in their procedure; this result was thus excluded from the reference value calculations. The relatively good agreement within a laboratory between different amino acids was not dissimilar to previous results for peptides or small proteins, indicating that factors such as hydrolysis conditions and calibration procedures could be the largest sources of variability. Peptide reference values with corresponding expanded uncertainty of 4.99 ± 0.28 mg/kg and 6.83 ± 0.65 mg/kg have been established for ALPAPIEK and GPSVFPLAPSSK, respectively. Not surprisingly due to prior knowledge from previous studies on peptide quantitation, agreement between laboratories for the peptide-based analysis was slightly poorer at 3 to 5 %, with one laboratory's result excluded for the peptide GPSVFPLAPSSK. Again, this level of agreement was not significantly poorer than that achieved in previous studies with smaller or less complex proteins. To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report.
Molekülmassenspektrometrie entwickelt sich weg von klassischer Target- hin zu Nontarget-Analytik. Elementmassenspektrometrie liefert hohe Ortsauflösung beim Element-Imaging und analysiert einzelne Zellen. Aufgrund der Fortschritte bei den Geräten für Timeof-Flight-Massenspektrometrie mit induktiv gekoppeltem Plasma (ICPToF-MS) lässt sich das gesamte Periodensystem der Elemente in kurzen transienten Signalen quasi-simultan massenspektrometrisch erfassen.
High-resolution mass spectrometry, either combined with gas or liquid chromatography (GC/LC-HR-MS), is currently the most powerful analytical option for broad nontargeted small molecule analysis. To transform HR-MS raw data from metabolomics or environmental studies into chemically meaningful data, several computational steps are needed, including peak detection, deconvolution of these peaks into compounds and putative identification of compounds using databases. Each of these steps can cause problems and still requires methodological advancements. Computational compound annotation as one of the steps, however, has proven particularly challenging, mainly due to the chemical diversity of organic analytes. In addition, different annotation approaches are needed for the different platforms used in HR-MS screening. We recently introduced InterpretMSSpectrum as an annotation workflow for GC-HR-MS using atmospheric pressure chemical ionization (APCI). InterpretMSSpectrum locates molecular ion, fragment and adduct peaks, calculates their most likely sum formula combination and graphically summarizes results as an annotated mass spectrum. As a complementary approach for LC-HR-MS, we presented findMAIN, which scores MS1 spectra based on explained intensity, mass accuracy and isotope charge agreement of adducts and related electrospray ionization (ESI) products to determine the neutral mass of unknown compounds. Both approaches were validated against large spectral libraries containing more than 600 compounds, for which correct annotation was achieved in over 80% of the cases. Based on the experiences from this validation, we here compare soft-ionization GC/LC-HR-MS regarding “annotatability” of unknown compounds from a computational perspective. As a main advantage for GC-HR-MS, the relatively uniform ionization behavior of commonly used trimethylsilyl (TMS) derivatives observed under APCI allowed differentiation of molecular ion peaks from in-source fragments based on relatively compact set of rules. By contrast, neutral mass inference in ESI required a more complex evaluation scheme, due to the higher diversity of ionization products observable in ESI. We demonstrate such differences by practical examples of both software packages applied to metabolomics studies and discuss the challenges connected to transferring the approaches to environmental screening.
Nontargeted high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is widely used for small molecule screening in biotic or abiotic samples. However, HRMS approaches like metabolomics or environmental nontarget screening currently still lack confidence in chemical annotation, i.e. computational structure assignment to all measured mass signals. As a crucial step within the annotation pipeline, molecular weight inference (MWI) deduces a compound’s intact mass from diagnostic mass differences between MS1 peaks, allowing precise database queries in subsequent steps. As the common practice of considering all possible ionization products such as adducts, multimers, multiple charges etc. in MWI suffers from high false positive rates, we aimed at selecting candidate ionization products in a chemically sensitive way. Generally, electrospray ionization produces different types of adducts depending on chromatographic system and sample matrix, necessitating application-specific optimization for optimum MWI performance. To avoid, however, the tedious and potentially biased manual data curation connected to optimization, we established an R-based workflow for automating this task. The workflow consists of two parts. Part 1 creates an MS1 spectral library by performing peak detection, spectral deconvolution and target peak assignment based on density estimation. Part 2 analyzes ion relationships within the library and returns a list of detected ionization products ranked by their frequency. We applied the workflow to a commercial 634-compound library that was acquired for two chromatographic methods (reverse phase, RP; hydrophilic liquid interaction chromatographic, HILIC) and the two ESI modes (positive, negative). As expected, different frequency distributions of ionization products were found for the two chromatographies. Interestingly, however, some of the differences were expected in terms of solvent chemistries (e.g. [M+NH4]+ in ammonium formate-buffered HILIC) while others indicated more complex ion competition (e.g. abundant [M+K]+, [M+2K-H]+ in HILIC). This demonstrated the relevance of this empirical approach. We further show that MWI accuracy clearly benefitted from derived optimized adduct lists – by adding filters or weighting terms – and present FDR calculations supporting this observation. We conclude that chemistry-aware compound annotation based on the combination of high-throughput library acquisition and statistical analysis holds significant potential for further improvements in nontargeted small molecule HRMS.
Comparing Nontargeted LC-MS Methods by Co-visualizing Linear Dynamic Range and Chemical Coverage
(2019)
INTRODUCTION
Biological and environmental samples contain thousands of small molecule species that all vary in chemical properties and concentration range. Identifying and quantifying all these chemical entities remains a long-term goal in metabolomics and related systems approaches. Due to its broad selectivity, nontargeted LC-MS is usually the method of choice for broad chemical screening. Optimizing nontargeted LC-MS methods, however, is less straightforward than for targeted methods where sensitivity, specificity, linearity etc. serve as well-established performance criteria. We therefore investigated linear dynamic range (LDR) and chemical classification as alternative performance criteria to guide nontargeted method development.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
LDR was defined as the linear portion of a feature’s response curve over multiple concentration levels. Comparing the LDR of features across methods can be expected to be significantly more robust than comparing signal intensities for a single concentration. To determine LDR for all features, a computational workflow was implemented in the R programming language. For estimating the linear portion of a curve, several mathematical approaches including linear, non-linear and piecewise linear regression were evaluated. Chemical classification was based on ClassyFire, which computes chemical classes for a given structure. To avoid false classifications for incorrectly annotated compounds, we took the following statistical approach. For each compound, multiple likely annotation hypotheses were derived using a recently described workflow[2]. All annotation hypotheses were submitted to ClassyFire and obtained classifications were ranked by frequency. The most frequently suggested class was kept for further analysis. Finally, LDR and chemical classes were visualized together on a molecular network, which was constructed using the well-established MS/MS similarity approach.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For technical validation of the workflow, several hundred curve fits obtained from the different regression models were reviewed visually. Piecewise linear regression performed the most reliably with respect to the heterogeneous curve shapes of ‘real-life’ features. Validation of chemical classification was performed against a compound library, which showed that 90% of ~450 library compounds were correctly classified using the described approach. Two liquid chromatography methods (HILIC, RPC) as well as two electrospray ionization variants (low/high-temperature ESI) applied to urinary metabolomics were exemplarily studied to test the workflow. Molecular network visualization indicated that of all analytical setups, HILIC/high temperature ESI performed best in terms of high LDR achieved over a wide range of compound classes. Despite one order of magnitude lower sensitivity, HILIC/low temperature ESI showed similar chemical coverage, except for organic nitrogen compounds that were underrepresented compared to high-temperature ESI. Both RPC setups were inferior to the HILIC setups in terms of high-LDR features, supporting previous findings for the given matrix. The higher relative representation of benzenoids and lipids in RPC demonstrated that the workflow successfully captured expected selectivity differences between chromatographies.
CONCLUSION
When comparing nontargeted LC-MS methods for optimization purposes, ideally all available quantitative and qualitative information should be integrated. The present workflow follows this idea. Visualizing LDR and chemical classes of all features on a molecular network quickly indicated differences in method selectivity that were otherwise difficult to spot. As an automated approach, it is easily applied to repeated optimization steps, enabling effective optimization strategies.