Dataset Information

Retention projection enables accurate calculation of liquid chromatographic retention times across labs and methods.

ABSTRACT: Identification of small molecules by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) can be greatly improved if the chromatographic retention information is used along with mass spectral information to narrow down the lists of candidates. Linear retention indexing remains the standard for sharing retention data across labs, but it is unreliable because it cannot properly account for differences in the experimental conditions used by various labs, even when the differences are relatively small and unintentional. On the other hand, an approach called "retention projection" properly accounts for many intentional differences in experimental conditions, and when combined with a "back-calculation" methodology described recently, it also accounts for unintentional differences. In this study, the accuracy of this methodology is compared with linear retention indexing across eight different labs. When each lab ran a test mixture under a range of multi-segment gradients and flow rates they selected independently, retention projections averaged 22-fold more accurate for uncharged compounds because they properly accounted for these intentional differences, which were more pronounced in steep gradients. When each lab ran the test mixture under nominally the same conditions, which is the ideal situation to reproduce linear retention indices, retention projections still averaged 2-fold more accurate because they properly accounted for many unintentional differences between the LC systems. To the best of our knowledge, this is the most successful study to date aiming to calculate (or even just to reproduce) LC gradient retention across labs, and it is the only study in which retention was reliably calculated under various multi-segment gradients and flow rates chosen independently by labs.

SUBMITTER: Abate-Pella D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4556278 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Retention projection enables accurate calculation of liquid chromatographic retention times across labs and methods.

Abate-Pella Daniel D Freund Dana M DM Ma Yan Y Simón-Manso Yamil Y Hollender Juliane J Broeckling Corey D CD Huhman David V DV Krokhin Oleg V OV Stoll Dwight R DR Hegeman Adrian D AD Kind Tobias T Fiehn Oliver O Schymanski Emma L EL Prenni Jessica E JE Sumner Lloyd W LW Boswell Paul G PG

Journal of chromatography. A 20150803

Identification of small molecules by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) can be greatly improved if the chromatographic retention information is used along with mass spectral information to narrow down the lists of candidates. Linear retention indexing remains the standard for sharing retention data across labs, but it is unreliable because it cannot properly account for differences in the experimental conditions used by various labs, even when the differences are relatively small an ...[more]

PMID: 26292625

Similar Datasets

Project description:Gradient retention times are difficult to project from the underlying retention factor (k) vs. solvent composition (?) relationships. A major reason for this difficulty is that gradients produced by HPLC pumps are imperfect - gradient delay, gradient dispersion, and solvent mis-proportioning are all difficult to account for in calculations. However, we recently showed that a gradient "back-calculation" methodology can measure these imperfections and take them into account. In RPLC, when the back-calculation methodology was used, error in projected gradient retention times is as low as could be expected based on repeatability in the k vs. ? relationships. HILIC, however, presents a new challenge: the selectivity of HILIC columns drift strongly over time. Retention is repeatable in short time, but selectivity frequently drifts over the course of weeks. In this study, we set out to understand if the issue of selectivity drift can be avoid by doing our experiments quickly, and if there any other factors that make it difficult to predict gradient retention times from isocratic k vs. ? relationships when gradient imperfections are taken into account with the back-calculation methodology. While in past reports, the accuracy of retention projections was >5%, the back-calculation methodology brought our error down to ?1%. This result was 6-43 times more accurate than projections made using ideal gradients and 3-5 times more accurate than the same retention projections made using offset gradients (i.e., gradients that only took gradient delay into account). Still, the error remained higher in our HILIC projections than in RPLC. Based on the shape of the back-calculated gradients, we suspect the higher error is a result of prominent gradient distortion caused by strong, preferential water uptake from the mobile phase into the stationary phase during the gradient - a factor our model did not properly take into account. It appears that, at least with the stationary phase we used, column distortion is an important factor to take into account in retention projection in HILIC that is not usually important in RPLC.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Inherited susceptibility to common, complex diseases may be caused by rare, pathogenic variants ("monogenic") or by the cumulative effect of numerous common variants ("polygenic"). Comprehensive genome interpretation should enable assessment for both monogenic and polygenic components of inherited risk. The traditional approach requires two distinct genetic testing technologies-high coverage sequencing of known genes to detect monogenic variants and a genome-wide genotyping array followed by imputation to calculate genome-wide polygenic scores (GPSs). We assessed the feasibility and accuracy of using low coverage whole genome sequencing (lcWGS) as an alternative to genotyping arrays to calculate GPSs. METHODS:First, we performed downsampling and imputation of WGS data from ten individuals to assess concordance with known genotypes. Second, we assessed the correlation between GPSs for 3 common diseases-coronary artery disease (CAD), breast cancer (BC), and atrial fibrillation (AF)-calculated using lcWGS and genotyping array in 184 samples. Third, we assessed concordance of lcWGS-based genotype calls and GPS calculation in 120 individuals with known genotypes, selected to reflect diverse ancestral backgrounds. Fourth, we assessed the relationship between GPSs calculated using lcWGS and disease phenotypes in a cohort of 11,502 individuals of European ancestry. RESULTS:We found imputation accuracy r2 values of greater than 0.90 for all ten samples-including those of African and Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry-with lcWGS data at 0.5×. GPSs calculated using lcWGS and genotyping array followed by imputation in 184 individuals were highly correlated for each of the 3 common diseases (r2?=?0.93-0.97) with similar score distributions. Using lcWGS data from 120 individuals of diverse ancestral backgrounds, we found similar results with respect to imputation accuracy and GPS correlations. Finally, we calculated GPSs for CAD, BC, and AF using lcWGS in 11,502 individuals of European ancestry, confirming odds ratios per standard deviation increment ranging 1.28 to 1.59, consistent with previous studies. CONCLUSIONS:lcWGS is an alternative technology to genotyping arrays for common genetic variant assessment and GPS calculation. lcWGS provides comparable imputation accuracy while also overcoming the ascertainment bias inherent to variant selection in genotyping array design.

Dataset Information

Retention projection enables accurate calculation of liquid chromatographic retention times across labs and methods.

Publications

Retention projection enables accurate calculation of liquid chromatographic retention times across labs and methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets