The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dereplication of Microbial Natural Products by LC-DAD-TOFMS
Abstract
Dereplication, the rapid identification of known compounds present in a mixture, is crucial to the fast discovery of novel natural products. Determining the elemental composition of compounds in mixtures and tentatively identifying natural products using MS/MS and UV/vis spectra is becoming easier with advances in analytical equipment and better compound databases. Here we demonstrate the use of LC-UV/vis-MS-based dereplication using data from UV/vis diode array detection and ESI+/ESI- time-of-flight MS for assignment of 719 microbial natural product and mycotoxin reference standards. ESI+ was the most versatile ionization method, detecting 93% of the compounds, although with 12% ionizing poorly. Using ESI+ alone, 56.1% of the compounds could be unambiguously assigned based on characteristic patterns of multiple adduct ions. Using ESI-, 36.4% of the compounds could have their molecular mass assigned unambiguously using multiple adduct ions, while a further 41% of the compounds were detected only as [M - H]-. The most reliable interpretations of conflicting ESI+ and ESI- data on a chromatographic peak were from the ionization polarity with the most intense ionization. Poor ionization was most common with small molecules (<200 Da). In ESI-, these were often polar and basic, while in ESI+ they were small aromatic acids or anthraquinones. No single ion-source settings could be applied over a m/z 60-2000 range. However, continuous switching among three settings (e.g., for 0.5 s each) during the chromatographic run allowed MS of both small labile molecules and large peptides, and pseudo MS/MS data on labile molecules since the settings for large molecules often induce fragmentation into small molecules.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The role of natural product chemistry in drug discovery
Butler, M. S. (2004) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np040106y · Cited by 1,381
Cited by
Current approaches and challenges for the metabolite profiling of complex natural extracts
Wolfender, J.-L., Marti, G., Thomas, A., & Bertrand, S. (2015) · Journal of Chromatography A · doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2014.10.091 · Cited by 635
Molecular Networking as a Dereplication Strategy
Yang, J. Y., Sanchez, L. M., Rath, C. M., Liu, X., Boudreau, P. D., Bruns, N., Glukhov, E., Wodtke, A., de Felicio, R., Fenner, A., et al. (2013) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np400413s · Cited by 607
Samson, R. A., Yilmaz, N., Houbraken, J., Spierenburg, H., Seifert, K. A., Peterson, S. W., Varga, J., & Frisvad, J. C. (2011) · Studies in Mycology · doi:10.3114/sim.2011.70.04 · Cited by 435
Self-citationKurita, K. L., Glassey, E., & Linington, R. G. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1507743112 · Cited by 156
Gacek-Matthews, A., Berger, H., Sasaki, T., Wittstein, K., Gruber, C., Lewis, Z. A., & Strauss, J. (2016) · PLOS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1006222 · Cited by 105
Metadata
- Authors
- Nielsen, K. F., Månsson, M., Rank, C., Frisvad, J. C., & Larsen, T. O.
- Venue
- Journal of Natural Products
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2011-10-25
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2338-2348
- ISSN
- 0163-3864 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6025
- OpenAlex
- W1968166882
- Cited by
- 246
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.