Told through the wine: A liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry interplatform comparison reveals the influence of the global approach on the final annotated metabolites in non-targeted metabolomics
Impact
Scholar |
Other documents of the author: Díaz San Pedro, Ramón; Gallart-Ayala, Héctor; Sancho, Juan V; Nuñez, Óscar; Zamora, T.; Martins, Claudia P.B.; Hernandez, Felix; Hernández-Cassou, Santiago; Saurina, Javier; Checa, Antonio
Metadata
Show full item recordcomunitat-uji-handle:10234/9
comunitat-uji-handle2:10234/33596
comunitat-uji-handle3:10234/33597
comunitat-uji-handle4:
INVESTIGACIONThis resource is restricted
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.01.010 |
Metadata
Title
Told through the wine: A liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry interplatform comparison reveals the influence of the global approach on the final annotated metabolites in non-targeted metabolomicsAuthor (s)
Date
2016Publisher
ElsevierISSN
0021-9673; 1873-3778Type
info:eu-repo/semantics/articlePublisher version
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021967316000303Subject
Abstract
This work focuses on the influence of the selected LC-HRMS platform on the final annotated compounds in non-targeted metabolomics. Two platforms that differed in columns, mobile phases, gradients, chromatographs, mass ... [+]
This work focuses on the influence of the selected LC-HRMS platform on the final annotated compounds in non-targeted metabolomics. Two platforms that differed in columns, mobile phases, gradients, chromatographs, mass spectrometers (Orbitrap [Platform#1] and Q-TOF [Platform#2]), data processing and marker selection protocols were compared. A total of 42 wines samples from three different protected denomination of origin (PDO) were analyzed. At the feature level, good (O)PLS-DA models were obtained for both platforms (Q2[Platform#1] = 0.89, 0.83 and 0.72; Q2[Platform#2] = 0.86, 0.86 and 0.77 for Penedes, Ribera del Duero and Rioja wines respectively) with 100% correctly classified samples in all cases. At the annotated metabolite level, platforms proposed 9 and 8 annotated metabolites respectively which were identified by matching standards or the MS/MS spectra of the compounds. At this stage, there was no coincidence among platforms regarding the suggested metabolites. When screened on the raw data, 6 and 5 of these compounds were detected on the other platform with a similar trend. Some of the detected metabolites showed complimentary information when integrated on biological pathways. Through the use of some examples at the annotated metabolite level, possible explanations of this initial divergence on the results are presented. This work shows the complications that may arise on the comparison of non-targeted metabolomics platforms even when metabolite focused approaches are used in the identification. [-]
Is part of
Journal of Chromatography A Volume 1433, 12 February 2016, Pages 90–97Rights
© 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
This item appears in the folowing collection(s)
- IUPA_Articles [310]