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

dc.contributor.author
Díaz, Ramon
dc.contributor.author
Gallart Ayala, Hèctor
dc.contributor.author
Sancho Llopis, Juan V.
dc.contributor.author
Núñez Burcio, Oscar
dc.contributor.author
Zamora, Tatiana
dc.contributor.author
Martins, Cláudia P. B.
dc.contributor.author
Hernández, F.
dc.contributor.author
Hernández Cassou, Santiago
dc.contributor.author
Saurina, Javier
dc.contributor.author
Checa, Antonio
dc.date.issued
2016-05-04T09:32:45Z
dc.date.issued
2018-12-31T06:10:15Z
dc.date.issued
2016
dc.date.issued
2016-05-04T09:32:50Z
dc.identifier
0021-9673
dc.identifier
https://hdl.handle.net/2445/98247
dc.identifier
656275
dc.identifier
26795279
dc.description.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 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 compound. At this stage, none of the suggested metabolites was coincident between platforms. 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
dc.format
8 p.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
Elsevier B.V.
dc.relation
Versió postprint del document publicat a: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.01.010
dc.relation
Journal of Chromatography A, 2016, vol. 1433, p. 90-97
dc.relation
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2016.01.010
dc.rights
cc-by-nc-nd (c) Elsevier B.V., 2016
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.source
Articles publicats en revistes (Enginyeria Química i Química Analítica)
dc.subject
Vi
dc.subject
Química dels aliments
dc.subject
Polifenols
dc.subject
Cromatografia de líquids
dc.subject
Espectrometria de masses
dc.subject
Wine
dc.subject
Food composition
dc.subject
Polyphenols
dc.subject
Liquid chromatography
dc.subject
Mass spectrometry
dc.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 metabolomics
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)