TY - JOUR
T1 - Retention projection enables accurate calculation of liquid chromatographic retention times across labs and methods
AU - Abate-Pella, Daniel
AU - Freund, Dana M.
AU - Ma, Yan
AU - Simón-Manso, Yamil
AU - Hollender, Juliane
AU - Broeckling, Corey D.
AU - Huhman, David V.
AU - Krokhin, Oleg V.
AU - Stoll, Dwight R.
AU - Hegeman, Adrian D.
AU - Kind, Tobias
AU - Fiehn, Oliver
AU - Schymanski, Emma L.
AU - Prenni, Jessica E.
AU - Sumner, Lloyd W.
AU - Boswell, Paul G.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2015/9/18
Y1 - 2015/9/18
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry
KW - Multi-laboratory study
KW - Retention database
KW - Retention library
KW - Retention prediction
KW - Retention projection
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84940452753&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84940452753&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.108
DO - 10.1016/j.chroma.2015.07.108
M3 - Article
C2 - 26292625
AN - SCOPUS:84940452753
SN - 0021-9673
VL - 1412
SP - 43
EP - 51
JO - Journal of Chromatography A
JF - Journal of Chromatography A
ER -