Two stage algorithm vs commonly used approaches for the suspect screening of complex environmental samples analyzed via liquid chromatography high resolution time of flight mass spectroscopy: A test study.

LC-HR-QTOF-MS recently has become a commonly used approach for the analysis of complex samples. However, identification of small organic molecules in complex samples with the highest level of confidence is a challenging task. Here we report on the implementation of a two stage algorithm for LC-HR-QTOF-MS datasets. We compared the performances of the two stage algorithm, implemented via NIVA_MZ_Analyzer™, with two commonly used approaches (i.e. feature detection and XIC peak picking, implemented via UNIFI by Waters and TASQ by Bruker, respectively) for the suspect analysis of four influent wastewater samples. We first evaluated the cross platform compatibility of LC-HR-QTOF-MS datasets generated via instruments from two different manufacturers (i.e. Waters and Bruker). Our data showed that with an appropriate spectral weighting function the spectra recorded by the two tested instruments are comparable for our analytes. As a consequence, we were able to perform full spectral comparison between the data generated via the two studied instruments. Four extracts of wastewater influent were analyzed for 89 analytes, thus 356 detection cases. The analytes were divided into 158 detection cases of artificial suspect analytes (i.e. verified by target analysis) and 198 true suspects. The two stage algorithm resulted in a zero rate of false positive detection, based on the artificial suspect analytes while producing a rate of false negative detection of 0.12. For the conventional approaches, the rates of false positive detection varied between 0.06 for UNIFI and 0.15 for TASQ. The rates of false negative detection for these methods ranged between 0.07 for TASQ and 0.09 for UNIFI. The effect of background signal complexity on the two stage algorithm was evaluated through the generation of a synthetic signal. We further discuss the boundaries of applicability of the two stage algorithm. The importance of background knowledge and experience in evaluating the reliability of results during the suspect screening was evaluated.

[1]  Martin Krauss,et al.  LC–high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns , 2010, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[2]  Reza Aalizadeh,et al.  Extended Suspect and Non-Target Strategies to Characterize Emerging Polar Organic Contaminants in Raw Wastewater with LC-HRMS/MS. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[3]  Malcolm J Reid,et al.  Target and suspect screening of psychoactive substances in sewage-based samples by UHPLC-QTOF. , 2016, Analytica chimica acta.

[4]  Sebastian Böcker,et al.  Computational mass spectrometry for small molecules , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[5]  Pedram Ramin,et al.  Comparison of pharmaceutical, illicit drug, alcohol, nicotine and caffeine levels in wastewater with sale, seizure and consumption data for 8 European cities , 2016, BMC Public Health.

[6]  Emma L. Schymanski,et al.  Suspect and nontarget screening approaches to identify organic contaminant records in lake sediments , 2014, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[7]  René P Schwarzenbach,et al.  Identification of transformation products of organic contaminants in natural waters by computer-aided prediction and high-resolution mass spectrometry. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[8]  Emma L. Schymanski,et al.  Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  R. Schuhmacher,et al.  On the inter-instrument and inter-laboratory transferability of a tandem mass spectral reference library: 1. Results of an Austrian multicenter study. , 2009, Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS.

[10]  J. Hollender,et al.  GC×GC Quantification of Priority and Emerging Nonpolar Halogenated Micropollutants in All Types of Wastewater Matrices: Analysis Methodology, Chemical Occurrence, and Partitioning. , 2015, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  K. Thomas,et al.  A two stage algorithm for target and suspect analysis of produced water via gas chromatography coupled with high resolution time of flight mass spectrometry. , 2016, Journal of chromatography. A.

[12]  R. Abagyan,et al.  XCMS: processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching, and identification. , 2006, Analytical chemistry.

[13]  Steffen Neumann,et al.  IPO: a tool for automated optimization of XCMS parameters , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[14]  Yufei Huang,et al.  Review of Peak Detection Algorithms in Liquid-Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry , 2009, Current genomics.

[15]  Yizeng Liang,et al.  Chemometric methods in data processing of mass spectrometry-based metabolomics: A review. , 2016, Analytica chimica acta.

[16]  Frans M van der Kloet,et al.  Analytical error reduction using single point calibration for accurate and precise metabolomic phenotyping. , 2009, Journal of proteome research.

[17]  Romà Tauler,et al.  Data analysis strategies for targeted and untargeted LC-MS metabolomic studies: Overview and workflow , 2016 .

[18]  W. Kruskal,et al.  Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis , 1952 .

[19]  Nikolaos S. Thomaidis,et al.  Targeted and non-targeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric workflows for identification of transformation products of emerging pollutants in the aquatic environment , 2015 .

[20]  Matej Oresic,et al.  MZmine: toolbox for processing and visualization of mass spectrometry based molecular profile data , 2006, Bioinform..

[21]  Priscila Biller,et al.  Moments of genome evolution by Double Cut-and-Join , 2015, BMC Bioinformatics.

[22]  Knut Reinert,et al.  OpenMS – An open-source software framework for mass spectrometry , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[23]  M. Hirai,et al.  MassBank: a public repository for sharing mass spectral data for life sciences. , 2010, Journal of mass spectrometry : JMS.

[24]  Emma L. Schymanski,et al.  Mass spectral databases for LC/MS- and GC/MS-based metabolomics: state of the field and future prospects , 2016 .

[25]  Heinz Singer,et al.  Alleviating the reference standard dilemma using a systematic exact mass suspect screening approach with liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry. , 2013, Analytical chemistry.

[26]  Thomas Letzel,et al.  Non-target screening with high-resolution mass spectrometry: critical review using a collaborative trial on water analysis , 2015, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry.

[27]  Gerhard Schembecker,et al.  Theoretical and experimental study of the pH-dependent interaction of amino acids and MFI-type zeolite , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[28]  Lloyd Allison,et al.  Reconstruction of strings past , 1993, Comput. Appl. Biosci..

[29]  J. Coble,et al.  Comparative evaluation of preprocessing freeware on chromatography/mass spectrometry data for signature discovery. , 2014, Journal of chromatography. A.

[30]  H. Ressom,et al.  LC-MS-based metabolomics. , 2012, Molecular bioSystems.

[31]  Steffen Neumann,et al.  Highly sensitive feature detection for high resolution LC/MS , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[32]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[33]  Nikiforos A Alygizakis,et al.  Occurrence and spatial distribution of 158 pharmaceuticals, drugs of abuse and related metabolites in offshore seawater. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[34]  Pan Du,et al.  Bioinformatics Original Paper Improved Peak Detection in Mass Spectrum by Incorporating Continuous Wavelet Transform-based Pattern Matching , 2022 .