van Tetering Lara, Spies Sylvia, Wildeman Quirine D K, Houthuijs Kas J, van Outersterp Rianne E, Martens Jonathan, Wevers Ron A, Wishart David S, Berden Giel, Oomens Jos
Radboud University, Institute for Molecules and Materials, FELIX Laboratory, Toernooiveld 7, 6525ED, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Translational Metabolic Laboratory, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Commun Chem. 2024 Feb 14;7(1):30. doi: 10.1038/s42004-024-01112-7.
Modern untargeted mass spectrometry (MS) analyses quickly detect and resolve thousands of molecular compounds. Although features are readily annotated with a molecular formula in high-resolution small-molecule MS applications, the large majority of them remains unidentified in terms of their full molecular structure. Collision-induced dissociation tandem mass spectrometry (CID-MS) provides a diagnostic molecular fingerprint to resolve the molecular structure through a library search. However, for de novo identifications, one must often rely on in silico generated MS spectra as reference. The ability of different in silico algorithms to correctly predict MS spectra and thus to retrieve correct molecular structures is a topic of lively debate, for instance in the CASMI contest. Underlying the predicted MS spectra are the in silico generated product ion structures, which are normally not used in de novo identification, but which can serve to critically assess the fragmentation algorithms. Here we evaluate in silico generated MS product ion structures by comparison with structures established experimentally by infrared ion spectroscopy (IRIS). For a set of three dozen product ion structures from five precursor molecules, we find that virtually all fragment ion structure annotations in three major in silico MS libraries (HMDB, METLIN, mzCloud) are incorrect and caution the reader against their use for structure annotation of MS/MS ions.
现代非靶向质谱(MS)分析能够快速检测和解析数千种分子化合物。尽管在高分辨率小分子MS应用中,特征峰很容易用分子式进行注释,但其中绝大多数在完整分子结构方面仍未得到鉴定。碰撞诱导解离串联质谱(CID-MS)通过库检索提供诊断性分子指纹图谱来解析分子结构。然而,对于从头鉴定,人们通常必须依赖计算机模拟生成的质谱图作为参考。不同的计算机模拟算法正确预测质谱图从而检索正确分子结构的能力是一个激烈争论的话题,例如在CASMI竞赛中。计算机模拟生成的质谱图的基础是计算机模拟生成的产物离子结构,这些结构通常不用于从头鉴定,但可用于严格评估裂解算法。在这里,我们通过与红外离子光谱(IRIS)实验确定的结构进行比较,评估计算机模拟生成的MS产物离子结构。对于来自五个前体分子的一组三十多个产物离子结构,我们发现三个主要的计算机模拟MS库(HMDB、METLIN、mzCloud)中几乎所有的碎片离子结构注释都是错误的,并提醒读者不要将其用于MS/MS离子的结构注释。