Skip to main content

Topics

This section allows you to view all Topics made by this member. Note that you can only see Topics made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - FalcoB

16
MS-DIAL / Why Matches from Post identification do not show a respective MS2 match?
Dear all,

for identification purpose I used post identification (txt file) as well as MS2 spectra annotation using the open-source msp-file from the website.
If I had a closer look into the data, I recognized that in any case when I got a match by post identification there was no respective MS2 match, although most of these features had a good MS2 spectrum. Therefore, and because I know that some of these analytes are present in the spectral library, I expected an MS2 match, too. But only the post identification result is reported in the annotation table and the feature list, respectively.

Can I find the result from MS2 matching of the "postident matching features" somewhere else?
If not, what is happening with features that are matched by post identification? Aren´t they considered for subsequent MS2 annotation?

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,
FalcoB
17
MS-DIAL / Why does selection of an MSP-File alters the number of aligned features?
Hi,

after processing the current data set I found out that it can make a difference for alignment, if you choose an msp file in the identificaton step vs. if you don´t.

I tested this for the current dataset in positive mode. By selecting an msp-file (the open-source file of MS-Dial) I got 14464 features. When no msp file was selected, I only got 14106 features after processing, although the same parameters were used. After all the difference in features is about 2%.

At the moment, I can not explain, how this can happen because the alignment should work the same whether you select an msp-file or not, isn´t it?

Best regards
FalcoB
18
MS-DIAL / Drift correction of signal intensities planned for MS-Dial?
Hey,

did you already thought about the implementation of an option in MS-Dial that allows for (e.g. QC-based) drift correction of signal intensities in all processed samples?

Especially when you have huge sample batches strong drift effects can occur. So from my opinion, this could be a very useful feature for the future.

What do you think about?

Best regards
Falco
19
MS-DIAL / Reporting of (post-processing) matches in Annotation Table - Isomer issues
Hello,

I have a question regarding the post-processing option in MS-Dial. What is MS-Dial doing, when you have partially (or fully) co-eluting isomers within your post processing txt file, i.e. compounds (adducts) sharing the same accurate mass and a very similar or the same retention time.
I processed my current data set in MS-Dial using our in-house-mzRT list consisting of approx. 400 compounds (txt and parameter file, see attached). As a result, and with respect to the Annotation Table I got about 40 matches. In parallel, I processed the same data set applying our R/XCMS workflow. Here, I got up to 40 additional matches when compared to MS-Dial.
At least partially, this can be explained by the fact that in MS-Dial only one (of several possible isomers) is annotated, whereas in XCMS any entry in the mzRT list is matched one by one and will finally be reported as “match” or “nomatch”.

Here some examples:
Name                                   Adduct   mz                   RT [min]      MS-Dial matching   R/XCMS matching
MRI_Quercetin-4-Glucosid   [M+H]+   465.10275   6.12              1743 (6.11)              FT2351 (6.11)
MRI_Spiraeosid                   [M+H]+   465.10275   6.13              nomatch              FT2351
MRI_Quercetin-3-glucosid   [M+H]+   465.10275   5.65              1745 (5.64)              FT2353 (5.63)
MRI_Myricitrin                   [M+H]+   465.10275   5.58              nomatch              FT2353
MRI_Quercetin-3-Galactosid   [M+H]+   465.10275   5.60              nomatch              FT2353
MRI_Quercetin-7-Glucosid   [M+H]+   465.10275   5.61              nomatch              FT2353
MRI_D-Saccharose                   [M+H]+   343.12349   1.03              1122 (1.04)              FT1429 (1.04)
MRI_beta-Gentiobiose           [M+H]+   343.12349   0.99              nomatch              FT1429
MRI_D-Cellobiose                   [M+H]+   343.12349   0.99              nomatch              FT1429
MRI_Maltose                           [M+H]+   343.12349   0.99              nomatch              FT1429
MRI_L-Lysine                           [M+H]+   147.11280   0.87              100 (0.85)              FT0131 (0.86)
MRI_N-alpha-Methylornithine[M+H]+   147.11280   0.87              nomatch              FT0131

In MS-Dial it looks like that in case there are several co-eluting isomers only one of them (probably the best match with respect to ΔRT/Δmz?) is applied to the Annotation Table and the others are “ignored”. This result was independently whether I checked “Only report top hit” in the Identification tab or not.

Is that true?

If yes, may it be useful to report the other possible matches in addition to the top hit (especially when not checking the “Only report top hit”)? So, you would be able to manually check this “isomer issues” in the Annotation Table and no possible match (isomer) can be overlooked.

Thanks for your response.
FalcoB
20
MS-DIAL / Selection of separate Spectral Library (.msp) Files in one Workflow possible?
Hey,

I have a question regarding the creation & selection of MSMS spectral libraries in MS-DIAL.
Is it possible to select several distinct .msp files in one data processing workflow for annotation or is it necessary to have it as one msp-file?

The background of my question is that we are currently creating our Inhouse MSMS spectral library in MS-DIAL. Therefore, we already measured several hundred reference compounds with our LC-QTOF machine.

In general, we prefer to create our own separate msp-file.  However, are you able to select these library as well as the database package of MS-DIAL in one data processing workflow. Or would this mean you have to annotate every data set twice, one time with “our file” and one time with the “MS-DIAL file”?

Thank you.

Best regards
FalcoB
21
MS-DIAL / MS2 spectra merged or not merged in MSDIAL?
Hi,

for metabolomics analysis we record our MS2 spectra in DDA mode on a QTOF device (TripleTOF 5600, Sciex).

Especially in the case of pseudo molecular ions with higher intensitites we sometimes get up to three single MSMS spectra per feature and file.

Now, my question is: Are these different MSMS spectra are merged during data processing in MSDIAL? If the spectra are not merged and you have let´s say e.g. three MSMS spectra per feature and file, which of them is then used for database annotation?

Regarding merging, I did not find any setting options in MSDIAL yet (e.g. MS or Rt tolerance). But from my experience I know that merging of MS2 spectra is possbile e.g. using vendor-specific Sciex Software (PeakView) or R/XCMS.

Thanks for help!

Best regards
Falco
22
MS-DIAL / Importing Sciex Data for Building In-house Mass Spectral Library in MSDIAL
Hey Hiroshi,

I planned to import Sciex data from DDA experiments in order to build an own, user- and device-specific MS/MS spectral library for  annotation in MSDIAL.

In this context, I would like to ask you what MSDIAL compatible data format is suggested for this purpose?
Are there variable options, how to extract the MS2 spectra from the raw files? Following this, should the assigned MSMS spectra left as they are or would it be better to eliminate the noise within the spectra before, und if so, how can this be done reliably?

Many thanks for your advice in advance!

Best regards
Falco

23
MS-DIAL / (Post)Alignment Processing - Blank filter option
Hi,

I have a question regarding the (post-)alignment process, i.e. the option to filter „blank features“.
In the alignment settings, I checked the blank filter option using an average intensity ratio of sample to blank of 3. Thus, the number of features decreases from 1836 to 933. That means, about 50% of the features were also detected in the solvent blanks with respect to the above-mentioned settings, and consecutively these features were not reported in the corresponding feature list (export by selecting „height matrix list“ and „blank filter option“).
However, when you look into that feature list, there are still a lot of features in there, which still have average intensity ratios below 3 or even below 1. Approx. 70% of all features belong to that category of features. So in my case, the blank filter process seems not to work properly.

Do you have an idea what the problem might be and how I can get a better feature list?
And a general question, what is meant with „Average Sample Intensity“: the average intensities from all sample files, but including or excluding QC samples?

By the way, I used MS-DIAL version 4.24.

Thanks for your response.
Falco