Comparability of Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Analysis of Dissolved Organic Matter across Laboratories

Résumé fourni par la source

Non-targeted liquid chromatography tandem high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is increasingly applied for the structure-resolved chemical analysis of dissolved organic matter (DOM). With new developments in MS instrumentation and analysis software, the approach has gained substantial momentum over the past decade. However, achieving high-quality analytical data that is reproducible and comparable across laboratories can be a bottleneck in non-targeted metabolomics and organic matter chemical analysis, especially for data reuse in repository-scale analyses. Understanding the capabilities as well as challenges of comparing LC-MS/MS data from different laboratories is necessary for inferring global trends from public data sets. To illuminate instrumentation factors that drive differences and variability, we used a standardized data analysis pipeline, including classical (CMN) and feature-based molecular networking (FBMN), to analyze data from a ring trial by 24 laboratories on identical sample sets of algal and DOM extracts that were mixed in predefined concentrations and spiked with standards. Our results showed that data sets from similar mass spectrometer types with unified instrument parameters were qualitatively comparable, resolving the same general trends and shared mass spectral features. Interlaboratory comparability was best for high-intensity features, while low-intensity features showed greater detection variability. Our analysis also highlights challenges when comparing data from instruments with different acquisition rates or operating with less standardized methods. Lastly, we provide recommendations for data integration, public data sharing, standardization, and best practices for standardized LC-MS/MS data acquisition, which will be critical for long-term time series and intercomparability of DOM chemical analyses.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.