Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 601

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Organization of GC/MS and LC/MS metabolomics data into chemical libraries

Open access
DeHaven, Corey D, Evans, Anne M, Dai, Hongping, Lawton, Kay A·2010·Journal of Cheminformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metabolomics experiments involve generating and comparing small molecule (metabolite) profiles from complex mixture samples to identify those metabolites that are modulated in altered states (e.g., disease, drug treatment, toxin exposure). One non-targeted metabolomics approach attempts to identify and interrogate all small molecules in a sample using GC or LC separation followed by MS or MSn detection. Analysis of the resulting large, multifaceted data sets to rapidly and accurately identify the metabolites is a challenging task that relies on the availability of chemical libraries of metabolite spectral signatures. A method for analyzing spectrometry data to identify and Quantify Individual Components in a Sample, (QUICS), enables generation of chemical library entries from known standards and, importantly, from unknown metabolites present in experimental samples but without a corresponding library entry. This method accounts for all ions in a sample spectrum, performs library matches, and allows review of the data to quality check library entries. The QUICS method identifies ions related to any given metabolite by correlating ion data across the complete set of experimental samples, thus revealing subtle spectral trends that may not be evident when viewing individual samples and are likely to be indicative of the presence of one or more otherwise obscured metabolites. RESULTS: LC-MS/MS or GC-MS data from 33 liver samples were analyzed simultaneously which exploited the inherent biological diversity of the samples and the largely non-covariant chemical nature of the metabolites when viewed over multiple samples. Ions were partitioned by both retention time (RT) and covariance which grouped ions from a single common underlying metabolite. This approach benefitted from using mass, time and intensity data in aggregate over the entire sample set to reject outliers and noise thereby producing higher quality chemical identities. The aggregated data was matched to reference chemical libraries to aid in identifying the ion set as a known metabolite or as a new unknown biochemical to be added to the library. CONCLUSION: The QUICS methodology enabled rapid, in-depth evaluation of all possible metabolites (known and unknown) within a set of samples to identify the metabolites and, for those that did not have an entry in the reference library, to create a library entry to identify that metabolite in future studies.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1758-2946-2-9

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 601

Metadata

Authors
DeHaven, C. D., Evans, A. M., Dai, H., & Lawton, K. A.
Venue
Journal of Cheminformatics
Published
2010-10-18
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
9-9
ISSN
1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2133740866
Cited by
601
References
21
FWCI
7.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organization of GC/MS and LC/MS metabolomics data into chemical libraries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1758-2946-2-9
The paper
DeHaven, C. D., Evans, A. M., Dai, H., & Lawton, K. A. (2010). Organization of GC/MS and LC/MS metabolomics data into chemical libraries. Journal of Cheminformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-2-9

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.