↓ Skip to main content

Development and in silico evaluation of large-scale metabolite identification methods using functional group detection for metabolomics

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development and in silico evaluation of large-scale metabolite identification methods using functional group detection for metabolomics
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, July 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00237
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua M. Mitchell, Teresa W.-M. Fan, Andrew N. Lane, Hunter N. B. Moseley

Abstract

Large-scale identification of metabolites is key to elucidating and modeling metabolism at the systems level. Advances in metabolomics technologies, particularly ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry (MS) enable comprehensive and rapid analysis of metabolites. However, a significant barrier to meaningful data interpretation is the identification of a wide range of metabolites including unknowns and the determination of their role(s) in various metabolic networks. Chemoselective (CS) probes to tag metabolite functional groups combined with high mass accuracy provide additional structural constraints for metabolite identification and quantification. We have developed a novel algorithm, Chemically Aware Substructure Search (CASS) that efficiently detects functional groups within existing metabolite databases, allowing for combined molecular formula and functional group (from CS tagging) queries to aid in metabolite identification without a priori knowledge. Analysis of the isomeric compounds in both Human Metabolome Database (HMDB) and KEGG Ligand demonstrated a high percentage of isomeric molecular formulae (43 and 28%, respectively), indicating the necessity for techniques such as CS-tagging. Furthermore, these two databases have only moderate overlap in molecular formulae. Thus, it is prudent to use multiple databases in metabolite assignment, since each major metabolite database represents different portions of metabolism within the biosphere. In silico analysis of various CS-tagging strategies under different conditions for adduct formation demonstrate that combined FT-MS derived molecular formulae and CS-tagging can uniquely identify up to 71% of KEGG and 37% of the combined KEGG/HMDB database vs. 41 and 17%, respectively without adduct formation. This difference between database isomer disambiguation highlights the strength of CS-tagging for non-lipid metabolite identification. However, unique identification of complex lipids still needs additional information.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
South Africa 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Japan 1 3%
Unknown 31 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 6 16%
Professor 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 32%
Engineering 4 11%
Computer Science 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2020.
All research outputs
#15,177,072
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#4,635
of 12,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,426
of 230,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#87
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,363 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.