Article Detail

Home > Article Detail
  • P-ISSN 2233-4203
  • E-ISSN 2093-8950

Isomer Differentiation Using in silico MS 2 Spectra. A Case Study for the CFM-ID Mass Spectrum Predictor

Mass Spectrometry Letters / Mass Spectrometry Letters, (P)2233-4203; (E)2093-8950
2019, v.10 no.3, pp.93-101
https://doi.org/10.5478/MSL.2019.10.3.93
Milman Boris L. (Institute of Experimental Medicine, ul.)
Ostrovidova Ekaterina V. (Institute of Experimental Medicine, ul.)
Zhurkovich Inna K. (Institute of Toxicology, ul)
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed

Abstract

Algorithms and software for predicting tandem mass spectra have been developed in recent years. In this work, we explore how distinct in silico MS 2 spectra are predicted for isomers, i.e. compounds having the same formula and similar molec-ular structures, to differentiate between them. We used the CFM-ID 2.0/3.0 predictor with regard to (a) test compounds, whose experimental mass spectra had been randomly sampled from the MassBank of North America (MoNA) collection, and to (b) the most widespread isomers of test compounds searched in the PubChem database. In the first validation test, in silico mass spectra constitute a reference library, and library searches are performed for test experimental spectra of “unknowns”. The searches led to the true positive rate (TPR) of (46-48 ± 10)%. In the second test, in silico and experimental spectra were interchanged and this resulted in a TPR of (58 ± 10)%. There were no significant differences between results obtained with different metrics of spectral similarity and predictor versions. In a comparison of test compounds vs. their isomers, a statistically significant correlation between mass spectral data and structural features was observed. The TPR values obtained should be regarded as reasonable results for predicting tandem mass spectra of related chemical structures.

keywords
tandem mass spectrometry, isomers, prediction of mass spectra, mass spectral libraries, prediction performance, structural similarity


Reference

1

Milman, B. L. (2016). . Trends Anal. Chem, 80, 636-.

2

Kind, T. (2018). . Mass. Spec. Rev, 37, 513-.

3

Milman, B. L. (2011). Chemical identification and its quality assurance:Springer.

4

Wolfender, J. L. (2018). . Anal. Chem, 91, 704-.

6

Chemical Abstracts Service. https://www.cas.org.

7

Milman, B. L. (2017). . Trends Anal. Chem, 97, 179-.

8

MassBank of North America. http://mona.fiehnlab.ucdavis.edu/downloads.

9

Allen, F. (2015). . Metabolomics, 11, 98-.

10

Allen, F. (2017). . Curr. Metabolomics, 5, 35-.

12

Djoumbou-Feunang, Y. (2019). . Metabolites, 9, 72-.

14

Boris L. Milma. (2018). Identification Performance of Low-Molecular Compounds by Searching Tandem Mass Spectral Libraries with Simple Peak Matching. Mass Spectrometry Letters, 9(3), 73-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.5478/MSL.2018.9.3.73.

15

The National Institute of Standards and Technology. NIST Mass Spectral Search Program, version 2.3. https://chemdata.nist.gov/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=chemdata:nist17.

16

Bolton, E. (National Institutes of Health, USA). Personal communication.

17

Stein, S. E. (1994). . J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom, 5, 859-.

18

Sample Size Calculator. https://www.surveysystem.com/SSCALC.HTM.

20

ChemMine Tools. http://chemminetools.ucr.edu.

22

Andersen, J. L. (2018). . MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem, 80, 705-.

23

Dührkop, K. (2019). . Nat. methods, 16, 299-.

Submission Date
2019-07-29
Revised Date
2019-09-14
Accepted Date
2019-09-15
상단으로 이동

Mass Spectrometry Letters