Accepted Manuscript SWATH data independent acquisition mass spectrometry for metabolomics Ron Bonner, Gérard Hopfgartner PII:
S0165-9936(18)30196-1
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2018.10.014
Reference:
TRAC 15278
To appear in:
Trends in Analytical Chemistry
Received Date: 9 May 2018 Revised Date:
3 October 2018
Accepted Date: 15 October 2018
Please cite this article as: R. Bonner, G. Hopfgartner, SWATH data independent acquisition mass spectrometry for metabolomics, Trends in Analytical Chemistry (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trac.2018.10.014. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
SWATH data independent acquisition mass spectrometry for metabolomics
2
Ron Bonner1 and Gérard Hopfgartner2*
3
1. Ron Bonner Consulting, Newmarket, ON, L3Y 3C7, Canada
4
2. Life Sciences Mass Spectrometry, Department of Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, University of Geneva, 24 Quai Ernest Ansermet, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland
5
7
RI PT
6 *corresponding author
8 9 Abstract:
11
Systems Biology and ‘Omics’ require reproducible identification and quantitation of many
12
compounds, preferably in large sample cohorts. Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry is
13
important since data generated can be used for structure elucidation and highly specific targeted
14
quantitation. Despite great success, the technique has limitations such as: compound coverage in one
15
analysis, method development time and single sample analysis time which determines throughput.
16
New instrument capabilities have led to improved methods, including ‘Data Independent Acquisition’
17
so-called because acquisition is not changed by acquired data. SWATH-MS is a specific example that
18
has quickly become prominent in proteomics because of increased peptide coverage, high quantitation
19
accuracy, excellent reproducibility and the generation of a ‘digital map’. These capabilities are
20
important in small molecules analyses although uptake in these applications has been slower. We
21
describe the SWATH-MS technique, review its use in applications such as metabolomics and
22
forensics, and summarize on-going improvements and future prospects.
23
Highlights
24
•
25
•
26
•
27
•
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
10
AC C
Reproducible, high quality, high coverage quantitation
Data Independent Acquisition for QUAL/QUANT analysis of metabolites Post-acquisition data re-interrogation and quantitation Standardization of LC/MS metabolomics workflow
28
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 29 30
1. Introduction and scope SWATH-MS[1] is one of the Data Independent Acquisition (DIA) liquid chromatography – mass
32
spectrometry techniques (LC-MS), so-called to distinguish them from the widely used Data
33
Dependent Acquisition (DDA). DIA methods are not new, but SWATH-MS has quickly become a
34
widely used and powerful technique for quantitative proteomics for a variety of reasons including
35
reproducible, specific quantitation; a reasonable analysis time; good dynamic range; and relatively
36
little method development. Further, the technique has potential for simultaneous qualitative analyses,
37
i.e. unknown compound identification, and allows retroactive data mining without re-analysis.
38
These strengths are also attractive for small molecule applications, such as metabolite identification,
39
forensic analysis and metabolomics, but acceptance has been slower in these areas and there are few
40
reports using this technique. Here we summarize the current literature and applications for small
41
molecule SWATH-MS and consider the future potential and required features, many of which are
42
related to data analysis software.
43
DIA methods evolved in proteomics from the need to reproducibly quantitate large numbers of
44
proteins with good dynamic range in many samples. The techniques and proteomics applications have
45
been thoroughly reviewed by several authors, for example: Tate et al. [2] reviewed the status of
46
quantitative proteomics for affinity-purification experiments, while Chapman et al. [3] reviewed the
47
development and applications of DIA and other multiplexed acquisition methods in depth. More
48
recently, Anjo et al. [4] examined the role of SWATH-MS in biomarker discovery, Schubert et al. [5]
49
considered the challenges of quantitative proteomics, and Fenaille et al.. [6] included DIA techniques
50
in their review of LC-MS acquisition workflows for metabolomics. Thus we only briefly summarize
51
the SWATH technique in order to provide context, compare it to other more well-known techniques,
52
and underscore some of the important features.
53
1.1 Background
54
DIA and DDA are performed on tandem mass spectrometers that consist of two stages of mass
55
analysis either physically separated by a collision cell or separated in time in a trapping instrument
56
[7]. The first stage selects precursor ions that are fragmented and the products are analyzed in the
57
second stage. The fragment ions provide information about the structure of the analyte and can be
58
used for library searching or de novo identification. The instrument is often coupled to an LC
59
separation system forming a powerful tool for the analysis of complex mixtures.
60
The precursor-fragment ion pairs are very compound specific and form the basis of Selected Reaction
61
Monitoring (SRM) that has long been the gold standard in quantitative analyses for drug development,
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
31
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT environmental studies and forensics [8]. The instrument monitors the precursor-fragment ion pair
63
during the LC run and the resulting signal is recorded. Quantitation is based on the area of peaks
64
detected in the chromatogram obtained from the signal. Several compounds can be analyzed in the
65
same run by switching between different ion pairs, but the number is limited by the amount of time
66
required to measure each signal and the need for chromatographic fidelity [9]. This is known as
67
Selected Reaction Monitoring mode or Multiple Reaction Monitoring (S/MRM). Method
68
development requires optimization of the chromatography and chosen ion-pairs to minimize
69
interferences and maximize sensitivity and linearity, and can be very time consuming even if the final
70
method is short.
71
Unlike S/MRM, which requires prior knowledge of the precursor and fragment ion masses, DDA
72
techniques repeatedly 1) acquire a survey precursor ion spectrum, 2) select a number of target ions
73
and 3) fragment the target ions and acquire fragment spectra. In proteomics the sample proteins are
74
digested with an enzyme, typically trypsin, and the peptide mixture is subjected to LC-MS-MS by
75
DDA. The resulting spectra are identified based on the peptide molecular weight, determined from the
76
precursor spectrum, and comparison with real spectra or those predicted from a library of proteins.
77
This is known as ‘shotgun’ proteomics. Continual development of the methodology, particularly the
78
use of fractionation prior to the LC-MS-MS analysis and the use of long gradients, has allowed
79
thousands of proteins to be identified from a single sample. However, the time required for one
80
sample can be very long, for example, using a 4-hour LC gradient on each of 72 fractions needed 288
81
hours (not counting re-equilibration time) [10].
82
As the focus of proteomics shifted to quantitation it became clear that DDA had other significant
83
limitations, often linked to the precursor ion selection process. Since an ion can be selected as soon as
84
it crosses a threshold value, analysis will not occur at the top of the LC Peak and spectral quality will
85
be sub-optimal. Survey scans are acquired frequently, to avoid missing compounds, which limits the
86
number of precursor ions that can be selected. As a result, selection depends on all eluting ions and
87
low intensity ions may never be selected. Further, selection is a stochastic process and different ions
88
may be selected in different analyses, even in replicates of the same sample [11]. Finally,
89
quantification must be based on MS data, since only single MS2 scans are acquired, rather than the
90
more specific fragments, although the use of labelled compounds has allowed quantitation via spectral
91
peak ratios rather than LC peak areas [12].
92
The need for better quantitation of many proteins led to investigation of the applicability of MRM
93
techniques [13]. Proteomics, however, is quite different to small molecule studies since digestion with
94
trypsin produces highly redundant mixtures of chemically similar peptides. In contrast, small
95
molecules are chemically diverse and one sample preparation process leads to a relatively small
96
number of compounds which generate limited numbers of fragment ions. But proteins and peptides,
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
62
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT unlike small molecules, are very predictable. For a set of proteins, the likely peptides, their retention
98
times and fragment ion masses (but not intensities) can be simulated. This feature was exploited by
99
several groups to find reduced numbers of ion pairs specific to given proteins. Sherman et al. [14]
100
computed peptide-specific ion pairs, called Unique Ion Signatures, while Aebersold and co-workers
101
determined the most specific (‘proteotypic’) peptides [15]. Since the intensity of any particular
102
fragment ion cannot generally predicted, the group synthesized the peptides and analyzed them in
103
batches by DDA to determine the most sensitive ion pairs [16]. This also provided accurate retention
104
times which could be used to switch between sets of ions during analysis (scheduled MRM). The
105
existence of these libraries was key to the development of SWATH-MS data analysis. Even for a
106
small number of target proteins monitoring still required many ion pairs, for example, the analysis of
107
108 proteins via 420 peptides required 1500 ion pairs [17]. Developing this method required several
108
months which would have to be repeated if more proteins were added.
109
DIA techniques were thus developed to provide a quantitation method with the reproducibility and
110
specificity of MRM but with good coverage and reduced development time. In all cases, DIA
111
techniques reproducibly cover a reasonable precursor mass range by repeatedly stepping through a
112
sequence of precursor selection windows, fragmenting all the ions and collecting a composite
113
spectrum. An extreme example is MSEverthing (MSE) which cycles between high and low
114
fragmentation conditions of all masses and restores precursor-fragment relationships by correlation
115
[18]. Of the four DIA techniques summarized by Chapman [3] three are implemented on trapping
116
instruments while the fourth (SWATH) is implemented on a quadrupole-time-of-flight instrument (Q-
117
TOF). The distinction is important as trapping instruments are not well suited to these analyses since
118
they are sensitive to the number of stored fragment ions and too many will degrade resolution and
119
mass accuracy. However, restricting the number of stored ions limits the dynamic range since the trap
120
will tend to fill with the most intense ions at the expense of the less intense. Increasing the width of
121
the ion window exacerbates this problem since there is a greater chance of storing high intensity ions.
122
Further, trapping instruments require time to achieve full resolution. One of the techniques reviewed
123
by Chapman [19] avoids this problem by using overlapping 2.5 amu windows, but multiple repeat
124
analyses are required to cover the whole mass range so analyzing one sample may need several days.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
97
125 126
1.2
SWATH-MS. Acquisition and data processing
127
MS/MS is based on the selection of a precursor ion and generation of fragment ions specific to the
128
analyte. DIA methods systematically acquire fragment data from precursor ion ranges chosen to cover
129
the mass range of interest. In many instruments precursor selection is performed by a quadrupole
130
mass filter, since they can rapidly switch the selection window and have good transmission. Figure 1
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT summarizes different options available for Q1 precursor window selection. Ideally the selection
132
quadrupole would step 1 Da at a time and a product ion collected at each step (Figure 1A). But, for a
133
mass range of 1000 Da with an acquisition time of 20 msec for each step, the total cycle time would
134
be of 20 seconds which is incompatible with liquid chromatography. This mode of operation has been
135
referenced as MSMSALL and has been successfully applied to lipids using flow injection analysis [20].
136
A better fit with the LC time scale is to operate Q1 in RF mode (i.e. no selection) and to perform
137
acquisition alternating two different collision energies, a low setting for molecular weight information
138
and a high setting to generate fragments. The method has been described as MSEverthing (MSE) [18]
139
or MSALL (Figure 2B) and is not a strictly an MS2 acquisition method as no precursor ion selection is
140
performed. With SWATH, Q1 is operated in filtering mode and both fixed and variable Q1 windows
141
can be used, potentially as many as 100 for an acquisition frequency of 100 Hz (Figure 1C and 1D).
142
Finally, it is also possible to scan Q1 over the complete mass range using a fixed Q1 transmission
143
window, e.g. 10-20 Da. This mode of operation offers an additional dimension of separation [21].
144
Figure 2 compares different quantitation modes based on the MRM concept. With SRM quantification
145
Q1 and Q3 are operated at unit mass resolution, typically a width of 0.7 Da at half-height, for good
146
selectivity and sensitivity (Figure 2A). A second precursor ion in the selected unit mass window will
147
only interfere with quantitation if it produces a fragment within the fragment selection window. In
148
some cases this can be avoided by using a different fragment ion albeit with reduced sensitivity
149
(Figure 2 B). If a high resolution second stage is used, such as in a QqTOF, it may be possible to use
150
the original fragment for best response. This is sometimes known as MRM
151
TOF always records all fragment ions, it is also possible to monitor several fragments to increase
152
selectivity and response (Figure 2C) and to monitor different compounds in the same selection
153
window based on their unique fragments. This is the basis of SWATH (Figure 2D) and leads to the
154
question: what is the optimal selection window width to allow specific quantitation of multiple
155
species? In the original SWATH paper, simulation for peptides suggested that 25 Da windows with a
156
10,000 resolution second stage would produce the same specificity as MRM [1, 20].
157
DIA workflows using sequential windows require a fast acquiring MS platform. QqTOF instruments
158
operate with a fixed resolving power independent of the acquisition speed which can be as low as 10
159
mSec seconds. Trapping instruments, such as the Q-orbitrap, require a trapping time and the resolving
160
power (RP) decreases with cycle time so achieving a high acquisition frequency means compromising
161
the RP. [9]. Furthermore, these instruments exhibit a decrease in resolution as the mass increases and
162
are susceptible to space charge if many ions are stored. SWATH-MS involves the successive selection
163
of overlapping precursor ion windows followed by fragmentation, which will occur even for ions
164
below the selection threshold for DDA. The window widths can be varied to optimize specificity and
165
acquisition time and even changed during an analysis [22]. Originally quantitation was based on peaks
166
detected in chromatograms of fragment ions present in the spectral libraries of real peptides acquired
HR
. However, since the
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
131
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for MRM analyses [16]. The known intensities were part of a scoring system used to select high
168
quality matches which also included: retention time, accurate mass (from the full spectra), isotope
169
peaks and LC profile correlation. Comprehensive scoring is a strength of SWATH that cannot be
170
matched even by MRM. Retention time standards, e.g. iRT peptides [23], have been used to allow for
171
changes in chromatography and when transferring methods between instruments and laboratories.
172
Spectral libraries can also be obtained from the study samples, for example, in proteomics it is
173
common to analyze sample pools by DDA and base the SWATH data extraction on the measured
174
masses. Note that the sample preparation conditions used to build the libraries do not have to be the
175
same as those used in SWATH although the chromatographic system should be the same. For
176
example, proteomics libraries have been generated from peptides enriched for phosphopeptides so that
177
the quantitative SWATH method can monitor all of these along with other forms [24]. These authors
178
also reported monitoring nearly 2000 proteins, c.f. the 90 reported by Bisson [17].
179
Another strength of SWATH is that the data corresponds to a ‘digital map’ of all detectable
180
fragments, i.e. a comprehensive electronic record of the sample. These maps can be mined at later
181
stages, for example, if other compounds of interest are subsequently discovered, and also allow the
182
samples to be part of different cohorts without the need for reanalysis [25].
183
SWATH has thus emerged as a powerful technique, especially for the reproducible and accurate
184
quantitation of many compounds. This has led to numerous reports of large-scale analyses for
185
biomarkers and the development of clinical assays [4]. The important characteristics are also
186
applicable to the analysis of small molecules in similar applications, i.e. reproducibility, speed,
187
compound coverage, quantitation accuracy and minimal method development. The ability to
188
retroactively mine the data and use it for qualitative analyses is an area of active research.
189
Although SWATH was initially developed for quantitation, it has the possibility for use in qualitative
190
analyses despite the lack of the precursor-fragment link. One approach, as used in MS , is to associate
191
ions with similar chromatographic profiles although this may not be straightforward in very complex
192
samples, if LC peak shape poor, or if there are completely co-eluting compounds. Another approach is
193
to submit the spectra to library search algorithms although this suffers from the mixed spectra
194
obtained when wide precursor windows are fragmented. However, the technique has great potential
195
since all fragments are available. For example, if fragmentation occurs prior to the first analyzer the
196
resulting fragments will themselves be fragmented in different precursor windows allowing a form of
197
MS3. We previously [26] reported a manual example in which a prominent ion was identified as an
198
[M+K]+ adduct which tend to fragment poorly; the precursor window containing the [M+H]+ ion was
199
examined and revealed a strong ion corresponding to the loss of glucuronic acid (176 Da), and the
200
window containing that fragment yielded a spectrum that could be successfully library searched.
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
167
AC C
e
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 201 202
2. Data Analysis for Low Molecular Weight Compounds and Metabolites As noted above, SWATH-MS loses the direct link between precursor and fragment ions that is
204
inherent to MRM. Correlation of chromatographic ion profiles can recover the link but may not be
205
effective for co-eluting species, thus the qualitative analysis of unknown compounds can be
206
challenging. However, the availability of information from all precursors, including fragments formed
207
prior to the first mass analyzer, can be very useful [26]. For known compounds, data from the window
208
containing the expected precursor can be interrogated for known fragment ions and quantitation can
209
be based on the area of LC peaks in the resulting chromatograms. Scoring, which can utilize several
210
parameters including measured intensity ratios and retention times, is important to ensure the best
211
results. Consequently high quality spectral and retention time libraries are critical, especially for small
212
organic molecules where fragment ion prediction is less reliable than in proteomics.
213
Various software approaches to enhance Data-independent Acquisition for proteomics have been
214
explored and were reviewed by Bilbao et al.. [27]. Metabolite data processing, however, depends
215
mostly on proprietary vendor software such as PeakView, MasterView and MultiQuant in the case of
216
Sciex. An open source software package ‘Mass Spectrometry – Data Independent AnaLysis’ (MS-
217
DIAL) was developed by Tsugawa et al.. [28] for untargeted metabolomics. Raw data can come from
218
different vendors (Bruker, Thermo) or mzXML files and are converted into Analysis Base File format
219 220
(ABF). In a first step, precursor ions are detected based on retention time and accurate mass and 2 visualized as spots in retention time vs. m/z plots. For deconvolution MS-DIAL uses an MS Dec
221
algorithm applied to the appropriate precursor ion windows for each precursor in all MS2
222
chromatograms. MS-DIAL performs compound identification using MS1 and MS2 data and MS2
223
spectral libraries (experimental and in silico) and quantifies the compound by area integration of MS1
224
precursor extracted ion current chromatograms.
226 227
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
225
RI PT
203
MetDIA [29] is a data analysis package developed in the R environment, which enables the targeted 2 extraction of metabolites from multiplexed MS spectra generated by DIA following five steps: (1)
229
peak detection and alignment, (2) targeted chromatogram extraction, (3) generation of peak-groups 2 and pseudo MS spectra, (4) metabolite centric identification and (5) statistical analysis and result
230
output. A consensus spectral library of 786 analytes (765 positive mode, 757 negative mode and CE
231
range +/- 20-50 eV) was constructed using chemical standards and the five most abundant fragment
232
ions of each metabolite were selected. After MS1 peak detection and library matching, MS2 ions are
233
extracted and compared using two orthogonal scores: peak-peak correlation and spectrum-spectrum
228
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT match. Initially the MetDIA approach was evaluated with a set of 30 metabolites from the human
235
metabolome database and all metabolites were identified with some additional false positives. The
236
method was also compared with MS-DIAL and similar results were obtained. With biological samples
237
(human serum, E coli bacteria, and rat liver tissue) however, the success rate of MS-DIAL was 20 to
238
75% lower than that of MetDIA.
239
Experimental and in-silico mass spectral libraries are versatile and have become essential tools for
240
compound identification [30]. Collision induced spectra of singly changed low molecular weight
241
compounds are generated at various discrete collision energies and depend on the instrument and
242
laboratory conditions. This makes the transfer of libraries generated from one instrument to another
243
difficult. Modern instruments also offer the possibility to use a collision energy ramp (e.g. 10 to 50
244
eV) to acquire product ion spectra. Bruderer et al.. [31] described a workflow to build high quality
245
mass spectral libraries for SWATH mass spectrometry data processing with discrete and composite
246
collision energy values. Sixteen product ion spectra were collected at different collision energies (5-
247
100 eV) for 532 metabolites from the human metabolome database in positive and negative mode.
248
They found that in positive mode a relatively large collision energy range (10-70 eV) gave
249
informative MS2 and more peaks which will generally result in more specific search spectra,
250
supporting the use of composite spectra databases. Since SWATH acquisition uses a wide precursor
251
ion window, complete isotope clusters are selected for fragmentation generating product ions with
252
isotope peaks which can be exploited for identification based on the expected ratios. High quality
253
libraries combining composite and discrete energy spectra are not only important for identification but
254
also for building optimal HR-MRM assays for quantification and for method transfer to triple
255
quadrupoles. Retention time is an important parameter in all LC-MS based metabolomics, i.e. MRM
256
as well as SWATH, but is typically only available from in-house libraries with standardized LC
257
conditions. The possibility to use a LC Calibration Mixture, similar to the iRT peptides for proteomics
258
[23], and retention time modification to estimate the LC retention time windows for any metabolite
259
and LC system is very attractive. [32]. Some indication of response factor would also be useful since
260
it could help set reasonable expectations for compound detectability.
SC
M AN U
TE D
EP
AC C
261
RI PT
234
262
The ultimate goal in metabolomics, in addition to metabolite identification, is sensitive, accurate and
263
precise metabolite quantification. Triple quadrupole instruments are very effective for ultra-sensitive
264
and accurate quantification but always require knowledge of the ion-pairs prior to acquisition. Unlike
265
DDA acquisition, where quantification is only possible in MS1 mode, SWATH enables quantification
266
in MS2 mode using HR-SRM for almost any precursor ions. Similar to proteomics, where spectral
267
libraries based on study samples have been generated using either DDA or DIA[5], various
268
approaches have been explored in metabolomics by using directly the user’s own SWATH data. A
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT bioinformatics workflow to build customized MS2 spectral libraries for MS2 based quantification
270
known as MetaboDIA was described by Chen et al.. [33]. With MetaboDIA the MS1 features are
271
analyzed to generate a template for a Compound Identification Unit (CIU) which is characterized by a
272
precursor m/z value and a retention time range. A consensus MS2 spectrum is also associated with
273
each CIU. The emphasis of the workflow is that the user retains MS2 spectra that are present through
274
the sample set even for metabolites where no publicly available reference spectrum exists. The
275
approach was successfully evaluated using a clinical metabolomics data set.
276
Zha et al.. [34] developed a SWATHtoMRM workflow R package to construct a large scale set of
277
MRM transitions starting from SWATH files. Three initial steps are necessary to generate a consensus
278
MS2 spectrum, which is used to construct the MRM transitions: 1) MS1 peak detection and alignment
279
2) extraction of MS2 peaks and chromatograms, 3) MS1 and MS2 peak grouping. Three critieria
280
define the selection of the transitions: 1) the m/z of fragment is smaller of that of the precursor ion by
281
at least a CH2 group (14.0156 Da), 2) removal of common losses such as H2O, NH3 or CO2 and 3)
282
selecting the remaining fragment ion with the highest intensity. The method was applied to build a
283
targeted metabolomics method that enabled quantification of 1303 metabolites to profile issues from
284
colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.
285
Recently a design of experiment (DoE) study to optimize software (PeakView) parameters for a non-
286
targeted peak finder approach combined with Formula Finder (Sciex) for a toxicological unknown
287
screening was reported [35]. The use of the optimal determined parameter values enables to reduce by
288
98.1% the amount of data necessary to identify drugs which significantly reduces the workload. The
289
optimized parameters were tested on 22 drug spiked blood samples and 62 authentic forensic cases an
290
in average 86.4% of analytes could be detected.
TE D
SWATH for Low Molecular Weight compounds and metabolites
AC C
3.
EP
291 292
M AN U
SC
RI PT
269
293
While SWATH-mass spectrometry studies for the quantification of proteins haves shown high intra-
294
laboratory and multi-laboratory reproducibility [36], limited work has been performed to evaluate the
295
performance for low molecular weight compounds. In drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics
296
quantification of the parent drug and identification of metabolites generally follow two different
297
analytical processes using two different mass spectrometric platforms: low resolution triple
298
quadrupole for quantification (MRM) and high resolution mass spectrometry for identification. Over
299
two decades several approaches have been described enabling the integration of both qualitative and
300
quantitative information (QUAL/QUAN) acquisition within a single analysis [37, 38]. Most of these
301
had limited performance as they were based on a data dependent acquisition scheme although
302
pharmaceutical method validation has to follow strict guidelines[39]. A QUAL/QUAN approach
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT using MSE and HR-SRM was performed for the analysis of acetaminophen and metabolites in plasma
304
samples. Similar accuracy and precision performances to the SRM/MS assay were obtained for
305
APAP, APAP-CYS and APAP-GLUC using high resolution-selected reaction monitoring mode with
306
LLOQ of 20, 50 and 50 ng/mL, respectively [40]. SWATH was shown to be powerful for integrating
307
qualitative and quantitative analyses of bosentan and its metabolites in urine over a concentration
308
range from 5 to 2,500 ng/mL [41]. Due to the large chemical space of pharmaceutical and endogenous
309
metabolites far fewer analytes can be detected in a single LC-MS analysis compared to proteomics
310
resulting in far better quality qualitative MS2 information. Absolute quantification requires the
311
preparation of calibration samples and the use of internal standards spiked into the sample before
312
analysis, while relative quantification can be performed post-acquisition. Standardizing the SWATH
313
workflow offers the potential to perform absolute quantitation post-acquisition by including generic
314
standards in the sample and generating calibration curves after identification. Forensic and
315
Toxicology is also a field where QUAL/QUAN approaches are of interest. Arnhard et al. showed that
316
even with relatively large Q1 windows (e.g. 21 amu) SWATH surpassed DDA for the identification of
317
low molecular weight compounds of toxicological interest [42]. Validated quantification of 39
318
antidepressants in whole blood was achieved based on a SWATH toxicological screening procedure
319
Roemmelt, 2015 #32}. The performance of DDA, SWATH and MSALL (identical in this case to MSE)
320
was evaluated for drug metabolite identification based on the quality of the metabolite fragment
321
spectra generated [43]. Eight drugs with extensive oxidative metabolism after incubation in
322
microsomes were investigated. Scores for MS2 quantity (QNS) and quality (QLS) were defined to
323
evaluate the performance of the different acquisition approaches. Interestingly, in the microsomes
324
analyzed only 4 and 5% of drug related metabolites were not selected for subsequent MS2 by DDA
325
and mass defect DDA[44], respectively. However, the values increased to 29% and 18% when the
326
metabolites were spiked in a more complex matrix such as urine. As expected, significantly better
327
MS2 spectra quality was observed for SWATH as for MSALL. The consequence being that for
328
endogenous metabolites compared to SWATH, MSALL will have limited sensitivity for the
329
identification of metabolites and also a smaller dynamic range for quantification due to the high signal
330
background .
331
Polar metabolites such as carboxylic acid, phosphate, amines, or phenol hydroxyl-groups are
332
challenging to analyze on reverse phase liquid chromatography due to their poor retention. Chemical
333
derivatization can help to overcome this limitation and also enables additional features regarding
334
ionization and identification. Siegel et al.. [45] proposed a strategy for integrated quantification and
335
identification by SWATH/MS of aldehydes and ketones based on rapid autosampler-in-needle
336
derivatization with p-toluenesulfonylhydrazine. The cycle time for one TOF experiment (range 50-
337
1000) and two sets of seven Q1 windows(of 40 Da) with two collision energy conditions was about 1
338
second which is essential to match UHPLC chromatographic performance. Beside improved LC
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
303
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT retention, TSH-hydrazone ionized efficiently in positive and negative ESI. In ESI negative mode an
340
abundant signature fragment at m/z 155.0172 due to toluene-sulfinate emerging from the
341
derivatization agent provided an option of chemo selective screening. Applicability of the approach
342
was demonstrated using 61 target metabolites in a yeast matrix.
343
SWATH acquisition offers novel opportunities to combine drug metabolism and metabolomics after
344
the administration of a single dose of vinpocetine to rats [26]. The SWATH data allows numerous
345
data analysis approaches, including: detection of metabolites by prediction; metabolite detection by
346
mass defect filtering; quantification from high resolution MS precursor chromatograms or fragment
347
chromatograms. An acquisition scheme of two series of Q1 windows were defined, one with small
348
windows of 15 Da specifically for drug metabolism and a second one with larger Q1 windows, 50 and
349
100 Da, to cover endogenous metabolites. Multivariate analysis could be applied to the data from the
350
full scan or SWATH windows and allows changes in endogenous metabolites as well as xenobiotic
351
metabolites, to be detected. It was possible to characterize 28 vinpocetine metabolites mainly mono-,
352
di- and tri-hydroxylated forms in urine, and detect endogenous metabolite expression changes.
353
Data independent acquisition workflows such as SWATH for metabolomics are not limited to a
354
QqTOF platform but can also be implemented on Q-orbitrap as illustrated by the work of Zhou et al..
355
[46] for the analysis of metabolites in papillary thyroid carcinoma serum samples. HILIC and reversed
356
phase chromatography were used for polar metabolites and lipids, respectively. An isolation window
357
of 50 Da was used for polar metabolites (range 50-750 Da) and for lipids (200-1200 Da). These
358
relatively large isolation windows, compared to 25 Da, were necessary to get an adequate number of
359
data points over the LC peak.
360
For proteomic analyses the SWATH precursor windows were originally fixed at 25 Da which was
361
considered as equivalent to a triple quadrupole regarding selectivity to monitor peptides with at least
362
five inference free transitions [1]. Of course, the optimal window size for best selectivity and
363
sensitivity is sample and analyte dependent and an additional separation dimension can be achieved
364
by using variable width precursor windows without compromising the total cycle time. Zhang et al.
365
[22] compared the performance of 1) fixed Q1 windows where the mass range is equally divided
366
(FIX), 2) variable window width chosen to equalize precursor ion population (PIP), i.e. the total
367
number of precursor ions is divided by the number of windows, and 3) variable width windows that
368
equalize precursor total ion current (TIC), where the intensity sum of all precursors is divided by the
369
number of windows. The various windows were generated by an in-house open source software
370
swathTUNER. Slightly different results were obtained for proteomic and metabolomics samples. In
371
the analysis of pooled urine samples with fewer detectable precursor ions than proteomic samples, the
372
TIC method appeared to provide slightly better spectra quality which is beneficial for metabolite
373
identification. Considering the chemical space and the type of chromatographic separation applied in
374
metabolite analyses, the use of scheduled SWATH [22] using variable isolation windows to match the
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
339
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT chromatographic separation of analyte classes may be a more powerful way to optimize cycle time,
376
quantification and identification.
377
Mass spectrometry imaging (MSI) [47] can generate qualitative and quantitative molecular
378
information directly from tissue samples without loss of spatial distribution information. In most cases
379
MSI experiments are performed on high resolution instruments in full scan mode although DDA data
380
can also be collected on almost any precursor but at the cost of analysis time. Therefore DIA
381
workflows may also be attractive for direct surface analysis. Cahill et al. [48] investigated the use of
382
laser microdissection-liquid vortex capture/electrospray ionization mass spectrometry for on-line
383
classification of tissues using a SWATH acquisition scheme. The MS was set up to acquire mostly
384
lipids with one TOF mass spectrum (m/z 600-1000) and three SWATH windows (m/z 700-775, 775-
385
850 and 850-925) with a total acquisition time of 1-2 s. SWATH spectra in positive mode were
386
dominated by the PC headgroup ions but in negative mode by PS, PE, PE and PI product ions.
387
SWATH acquisition improved the accuracies of PCA-LDA model tissue region identification.
388
LC-SWATH/MS acquisition was used for the temporal qualitative and quantitative analysis of
389
pharmaceutical and illicit drugs in wastewater from southern Australia[49]. The TOF mass range was
390
from m/z 50 to 600 and 34 SWATH Q1 windows (16 Da) were acquired with a total cycle time of 3.4
391
sec. 53 samples were analyzed over a period of 14 months and a total of 100 compounds could be
392
detected and confirmed.
394
4. New developments
395
TE D
393
M AN U
SC
RI PT
375
While SWATH acquisition can currently be performed on high resolution QqTOF or Q-orbitrap
397
platforms, the key parameters to fully benefit from the technique remain 1) the cycle time, which
398
needs to be as short as possible to for use with ultra-high performance liquid chromatography, and 2)
399
absence of saturation of the ions selected in the Q1 window which limits dynamic range. While it will
400
take some additional for the use of SWATH as QUAL/QUANT tools for analysis of low molecular
401
weight compounds to become widespread, some variations of the acquisition scheme are already
402
emerging. Kaufman et al.. [50] propose using a systematic variation (nested design) versus the
403
continuous variation of the Q1 windows. Preliminary experiments performed on a Q-orbitrap
404
compared an acquisition scheme of 18 fixed 48 Da Q1 windows for a total cycle of 1.51 second
405
versus a binary tree multiplex scan of various Q1 size (12 scans) with total cycle time of 1.31 s. The
406
major benefit claimed being that smaller calculated mass windows, 13.4 Da versus 48 Da, can be used
407
without increasing the total cycle time. Currently the major limitation is the lack of an adequate
408
computational framework.
AC C
EP
396
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A current challenge in SWATH is correctly assigning precursor and fragment ions for qualitative
410
analysis. Relying on the chromatography peak shape and performing feature alignment of extracted
411
ion current profiles is not adequate as many LC peaks can show different behavior during the
412
chromatography (peak fronting, peak, splitting or peak tailing). Another interesting approach, where a
413
fixed Q1 window is scanned across the complete mass range, has been described on QqTOF
414
instruments by two different groups and referred to as scanning SWATH [51] and SONAR [21]. By
415
scanning the Q1 windows with and without collision energy, precursors and fragments ions can be
416
correlated both chromatographically and as a function of Q1 mass. This allows the use of much wider
417
Q1 windows for best sensitivity with correct assignment of different fragments in the m/z dimension
418
even with coeluting precursors.
RI PT
409
420
SC
419 5. Conclusions
In a relatively short time period (2010-2012) several novel DIA workflows were reported, primarily
422
driven by proteomics while the use of DIA in metabolomics has only gained interest very recently. Of
423
the four techniques reviewed by Chapman [3], SWATH has been mostly widely accepted with 710
424
citations followed by PAcIFIC [19] 48 citations, FT-ARM [52] 48 citations and XDIA [53] 46
425
citations. (Citation Index, web of Science, May 06 2018). Unlike the other methods, SWATH is well
426
suited to QqTOF instruments since it relies on the shape of the Q1 isolation windows, the acquisition
427
speed and dynamic range of the mass spectrometer.
TE D
M AN U
421
428
The main reason for this acceptance is the capability of reproducible, high quality quantitation for a
430
wide range of compounds. Unlike MRM, which still provides the best quantitation performance for a
431
few compounds, SWATH requires little method development and does not require modification to
432
monitor additional compounds. For small molecule applications it seems likely that, as in proteomics,
433
methods will be standardized and reference compounds will be developed to calibrate retention times
434
and amounts. With this the ‘digital maps’ produced will also be standardized which will have
435
numerous benefits. For example, inter-laboratory transfer of methods, which are related to data
436
processing not acquisition, will be straightforward and reproducible across laboratories. Further,
437
samples can be used in different studies that target different analytes, increasing the value of precious
438
samples.
439
Currently the major challenge for routine use is the lack of software tools in two areas. First, data
440
processing tools to aid the identification of unknown compounds and, secondly, efficient and reliable
441
data processing software which deals with complex acquisition schemes and is suitable for
442
simultaneous metabolite identification and quantification. This will become even more important, and
AC C
EP
429
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 443
difficult, with the integration of ion mobility spectrometry in the workflow as an additional separation
444
dimension. This is highly desirable for the analysis of very complex biological matrices.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
445
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 446
List of Figures
447 Figure 1: Various DIA workflows using different Q1 isolation window to cover the precursor mass
449
range of interest. A) MS/MSALL; a 1 Da window is stepped across the entire range. In practice this is
450
only useful with infusion analyses. B) MSe; the entire range is transmitted with alternating collision
451
energies, light blue = low energy, dark blue = high energy. C) SWATH with fixed windows; a set of
452
windows of the same width (e.g. 25 Da) covering the range are repeatedly analyzed. D) SWATH with
453
variable windows; as before but the window width is not uniform. E) SWATH with scanning
454
quadrupole; a wide selection window (e.g. 25 amu) is scanned across the range of interest generating
455
multiple overlapping windows.
SC
RI PT
448
456
Figure 2: Comparison of MRM-like quantification techniques for fragment mass analyzers with
458
different resolution and for different precursor selection window widths. A) SRM using a 1 amu
459
precursor window and a 1 amu fragment selection window centred on the known fragment mass of
460
interest. Quantitation is achieved by monitoring the fragment intensity during an LCMS run. B) as A)
461
but with a different, less intense fragment, because the original has an interfering fragment from a
462
second co-selected precursor. C) As B) but using a high resolution second analyzer so that the
463
interfering fragments can be uniquely selected. For a TOF second stage all fragments are analyzed so
464
additional known fragments can also be monitored. As illustrated, both compounds could be analyzed.
465
D) SWATH. Increasing the precursor window generates more fragments but if unique fragment
466
chromatograms can be extracted multiple compounds can be analyzed.
TE D
EP AC C
467
M AN U
457
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 468
References
469
[1] L.C. Gillet, P. Navarro, S. Tate, H. Rost, N. Selevsek, L. Reiter, R. Bonner, R. Aebersold,
470
Targeted Data Extraction of the MS/MS Spectra Generated by Data-independent Acquisition: A
471
New Concept for Consistent and Accurate Proteome Analysis, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 11 (2012)
472
O111 016717.
475 476 477 478
protein–protein interactions, J. Proteom., 81 (2013) 91-101.
RI PT
474
[2] S. Tate, B. Larsen, R. Bonner, A.-C. Gingras, Label-free quantitative proteomics trends for
[3] J.D. Chapman, D.R. Goodlett, C.D. Masselon, Multiplexed and data-independent tandem mass spectrometry for global proteome profiling, Mass Spectrom. Rev., 33 (2014) 452-470.
[4] S.I. Anjo, C. Santa, B. Manadas, SWATH-MS as a tool for biomarker discovery: From basic research to clinical applications, Proteomics, 17 (2017) 23.
SC
473
[5] O.T. Schubert, H.L. Rost, B.C. Collins, G. Rosenberger, R. Aebersold, Quantitative proteomics:
480
challenges and opportunities in basic and applied research, Nat Protoc, 12 (2017) 1289-1294.
481
[6] F. Fenaille, P. Barbier Saint-Hilaire, K. Rousseau, C. Junot, Data acquisition workflows in liquid
482
chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry-based metabolomics: Where do
483
we stand?, J. Chromatogr. A, 1526 (2017) 1-12.
M AN U
479
484
[7] W.M.A. Niessen, MS–MS and MSn☆ A2 - Lindon, John C, in: G.E. Tranter, D.W. Koppenaal
485
(Eds.) Encyclopedia of Spectroscopy and Spectrometry (Third Edition), Academic Press, Oxford,
486
2017, pp. 936-941.
488 489 490
[8] G. Hopfgartner, E. Bourgogne, Quantitative high-throughput analysis of drugs in biological
TE D
487
matrices by mass spectrometry, Mass Spectrom. Rev., 22 (2003) 195-214. [9] G. Hopfgartner, Can MS fully exploit the benefits of fast chromatography?, Bioanalysis, 3 (2011) 121-123.
[10] N. Nagaraj, J.R. Wisniewski, T. Geiger, J. Cox, M. Kircher, J. Kelso, S. Pääbo, M. Mann, Deep
492
proteome and transcriptome mapping of a human cancer cell line, Mol. Syst. Biol., 7 (2011).
493
[11] B. Domon, R. Aebersold, Options and considerations when selecting a quantitative proteomics
495 496 497 498 499 500
AC C
494
EP
491
strategy, Nat. Biotechnol., 28 (2010) 710. [12] M. Mann, Functional and quantitative proteomics using SILAC, Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol., 7 (2006) 952.
[13] L. Anderson, C.L. Hunter, Quantitative mass spectrometric multiple reaction monitoring assays for major plasma proteins, Mol. Cell. Proteomics, 5 (2006) 573-588. [14] J. Sherman, M.M. J., A. Keith, M.M. P., How specific is my SRM?: The issue of precursor and product ion redundancy, Proteomics, 9 (2009) 1120-1123.
501
[15] P. Mallick, M. Schirle, S.S. Chen, M.R. Flory, H. Lee, D. Martin, J. Ranish, B. Raught, R.
502
Schmitt, T. Werner, B. Kuster, R. Aebersold, Computational prediction of proteotypic peptides
503
for quantitative proteomics, Nat. Biotechnol., 25 (2006) 125. 16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 504
[16] P. Picotti, O. Rinner, R. Stallmach, F. Dautel, T. Farrah, B. Domon, H. Wenschuh, R. Aebersold,
505
High-throughput generation of selected reaction-monitoring assays for proteins and proteomes,
506
Nat. Methods, 7 (2009) 43.
507
[17] N. Bisson, D.A. James, G. Ivosev, S.A. Tate, R. Bonner, L. Taylor, T. Pawson, Selected reaction
508
monitoring mass spectrometry reveals the dynamics of signaling through the GRB2 adaptor, Nat.
509
Biotechnol., 29 (2011) 653. [18] R.S. Plumb, K.A. Johnson, P. Rainville, B.W. Smith, I.D. Wilson, J.M. Castro‐Perez, J.K.
511
Nicholson, UPLC/MSE; a new approach for generating molecular fragment information for
512
biomarker structure elucidation, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 20 (2006) 1989-1994.
RI PT
510
[19] A. Panchaud, S. Jung, S.A. Shaffer, J.D. Aitchison, D.R. Goodlett, Faster, Quantitative, and
514
Accurate Precursor Acquisition Independent From Ion Count, Anal. Chem., 83 (2011) 2250-
515
2257.
SC
513
[20] B. Simons, D. Kauhanen, T. Sylvänne, K. Tarasov, E. Duchoslav, K. Ekroos, Shotgun
517
Lipidomics by Sequential Precursor Ion Fragmentation on a Hybrid Quadrupole Time-of-Flight
518
Mass Spectrometer, Metabolites, 2 (2012) 195-213.
M AN U
516
519
[21] M.A. Moseley, C.J. Hughes, P.R. Juvvadi, E.J. Soderblom, S. Lennon, S.R. Perkins, J.W.
520
Thompson, W.J. Steinbach, S.J. Geromanos, J. Wildgoose, J.I. Langridge, K. Richardson, J.P.C.
521
Vissers, Scanning Quadrupole Data-Independent Acquisition, Part A: Qualitative and
522
Quantitative Characterization, J. Proteome Res., 17 (2018) 770-779. [22] Y. Zhang, A. Bilbao, T. Bruderer, J. Luban, C. Strambio-De-Castillia, F. Lisacek, G.
524
Hopfgartner, E. Varesio, The Use of Variable Q1 Isolation Windows Improves Selectivity in LC-
525
SWATH-MS Acquisition, J. Proteome Res., 14 (2015) 4359-4371.
TE D
523
[23] C. Escher, L. Reiter, B. MacLean, R. Ossola, F. Herzog, J. Chilton, M.J. MacCoss, O. Rinner,
527
Using iRT, a normalized retention time for more targeted measurement of peptides, Proteomics,
528
12 (2012) 1111-1121.
EP
526
[24] B.C. Collins, L.C. Gillet, G. Rosenberger, H.L. Rost, A. Vichalkovski, M. Gstaiger, R.
530
Aebersold, Quantifying protein interaction dynamics by SWATH mass spectrometry: application
531
to the 14-3-3 system, Nat Methods, 10 (2013) 1246-1253.
532 533 534 535
AC C
529
[25] Y. Liu, R. Huttenhain, B. Collins, R. Aebersold, Mass spectrometric protein maps for biomarker discovery and clinical research, Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn., 13 (2013) 811-825. [26] R. Bonner, G. Hopfgartner, SWATH acquisition mode for drug metabolism and metabolomics investigations, Bioanalysis, 8 (2016) 1735-1750.
536
[27] A. Bilbao, E. Varesio, J. Luban, C. Strambio-De-Castillia, G. Hopfgartner, M. Muller, F.
537
Lisacek, Processing strategies and software solutions for data-independent acquisition in mass
538
spectrometry, Proteomics, 15 (2015) 964-980.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 539
[28] H. Tsugawa, T. Cajka, T. Kind, Y. Ma, B. Higgins, K. Ikeda, M. Kanazawa, J. VanderGheynst,
540
O. Fiehn, M. Arita, MS-DIAL: data-independent MS/MS deconvolution for comprehensive
541
metabolome analysis, Nat. Methods, 12 (2015) 523.
542
[29] H. Li, Y. Cai, Y. Guo, F. Chen, Z.-J. Zhu, MetDIA: Targeted Metabolite Extraction of
543
Multiplexed MS/MS Spectra Generated by Data-Independent Acquisition, Anal. Chem., 88
544
(2016) 8757-8764. [30] T. Kind, H. Tsugawa, T. Cajka, Y. Ma, Z. Lai, S.S. Mehta, G. Wohlgemuth, D.K. Barupal, M.R.
546
Showalter, M. Arita, O. Fiehn, Identification of small molecules using accurate mass MS/MS
547
search, Mass Spectrom. Rev., DOI 10.1002/mas.21535(2017).
RI PT
545
[31] T. Bruderer, E. Varesio, A.O. Hidasi, E. Duchoslav, L. Burton, R. Bonner, G. Hopfgartner,
549
Metabolomic spectral libraries for data-independent SWATH liquid chromatography mass
550
spectrometry acquisition, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 410 (2018) 1873-1884.
SC
548
[32] T. Bruderer, E. Varesio, G. Hopfgartner, The use of LC predicted retention times to extend
552
metabolites identification with SWATH data acquisition, J. Chromatogr. B, 1071 (2017) 3-10.
553
[33] G. Chen, S. Walmsley, G.C.M. Cheung, L. Chen, C.Y. Cheng, R.W. Beuerman, T.Y. Wong, L.
554
Zhou, H. Choi, Customized Consensus Spectral Library Building for Untargeted Quantitative
555
Metabolomics Analysis with Data Independent Acquisition Mass Spectrometry and MetaboDIA
556
Workflow, Anal. Chem., 89 (2017) 4897-4906.
M AN U
551
[34] H. Zha, Y. Cai, Y. Yin, Z. Wang, K. Li, Z.-J. Zhu, SWATHtoMRM: Development of High-
558
Coverage Targeted Metabolomics Method Using SWATH Technology for Biomarker Discovery,
559
Anal. Chem., 90 (2018) 4062-4070.
TE D
557
[35] M.P. Elmiger, M. Poetzsch, A.E. Steuer, T. Kraemer, Parameter Optimization for Feature and Hit
561
Generation in a General Unknown Screening Method—Proof of Concept Study Using a Design
562
of Experiment Approach for a High Resolution Mass Spectrometry Procedure after Data
563
Independent Acquisition, Anal. Chem., 90 (2018) 3531-3536.
EP
560
[36] B.C. Collins, C.L. Hunter, Y. Liu, B. Schilling, G. Rosenberger, S.L. Bader, D.W. Chan, B.W.
565
Gibson, A.-C. Gingras, J.M. Held, M. Hirayama-Kurogi, G. Hou, C. Krisp, B. Larsen, L. Lin, S.
566
Liu, M.P. Molloy, R.L. Moritz, S. Ohtsuki, R. Schlapbach, N. Selevsek, S.N. Thomas, S.-C.
567
Tzeng, H. Zhang, R. Aebersold, Multi-laboratory assessment of reproducibility, qualitative and
568
quantitative performance of SWATH-mass spectrometry, Nat. Commun., 8 (2017) 291.
AC C
564
569
[37] T.V. Olah, D.A. McLoughlin, J.D. Gilbert, The simultaneous determination of mixtures of drug
570
candidates by liquid chromatography/atmospheric pressure chemical ionization mass
571
spectrometry as an in vivo drug screening procedure, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 11
572
(1997) 17-23.
573 574
[38] N. Zhang, S.T. Fountain, H. Bi, D.T. Rossi, Quantification and Rapid Metabolite Identification in Drug Discovery Using API Time-of-Flight LC/MS, Anal. Chem., 72 (2000) 800-806.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 575
[39] C.T. Viswanathan, S. Bansal, B. Booth, A.J. DeStefano, M.J. Rose, J. Sailstad, V.P. Shah, J.P.
576
Skelly, P.G. Swann, R. Weiner, Quantitative bioanalytical methods validation and
577
implementation: best practices for chromatographic and ligand binding assays, Pharm. Res., 24
578
(2007) 1962-1973. [40] D. Tonoli, E. Varesio, G. Hopfgartner, Quantification of acetaminophen and two of its
580
metabolites in human plasma by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-low and high
581
resolution tandem mass spectrometry, J. Chromatogr. B, 904 (2012) 42-50.
RI PT
579
582
[41] G. Hopfgartner, D. Tonoli, E. Varesio, High-resolution mass spectrometry for integrated
583
qualitative and quantitative analysis of pharmaceuticals in biological matrices, Anal. Bioanal.
584
Chem., 402 (2012) 2587-2596.
[42] K. Arnhard, A. Gottschall, F. Pitterl, H. Oberacher, Applying ‘Sequential Windowed Acquisition
586
of All Theoretical Fragment Ion Mass Spectra’ (SWATH) for systematic toxicological analysis
587
with liquid chromatography-high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry, Anal. Bioanal. Chem.,
588
407 (2015) 405-414.
M AN U
SC
585
589
[43] X. Zhu, Y. Chen, R. Subramanian, Comparison of information-dependent acquisition, SWATH,
590
and MS(All) techniques in metabolite identification study employing ultrahigh-performance
591
liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry, Anal. Chem., 86 (2014)
592
1202-1209.
594
[44] S.G. Ma, S.K. Chowdhury, Data acquisition and data mining techniques for metabolite identification using LC coupled to high-resolution MS, Bioanalysis, 5 (2013) 1285-1297.
TE D
593
595
[45] D. Siegel, A.C. Meinema, H. Permentier, G. Hopfgartner, R. Bischoff, Integrated quantification
596
and identification of aldehydes and ketones in biological samples, Anal. Chem., 86 (2014) 5089-
597
5100.
[46] J. Zhou, Y. Li, X. Chen, L. Zhong, Y. Yin, Development of data-independent acquisition
599
workflows for metabolomic analysis on a quadrupole-orbitrap platform, Talanta, 164 (2017) 128-
600
136.
602
[47] A.R. Buchberger, K. DeLaney, J. Johnson, L. Li, Mass Spectrometry Imaging: A Review of
AC C
601
EP
598
Emerging Advancements and Future Insights, Anal. Chem., 90 (2018) 240-265.
603
[48] J.F. Cahill, V. Kertesz, T. Porta, J.C.Y. LeBlanc, R.M.A. Heeren, G.J. Van Berkel, Solvent
604
effects on differentiation of mouse brain tissue using laser microdissection 'cut and drop'
605
sampling with direct mass spectral analysis, Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom., 32 (2018) 414-
606
422.
607
[49] R. Bade, J.M. White, C. Gerber, Qualitative and quantitative temporal analysis of licit and illicit
608
drugs in wastewater in Australia using liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry,
609
Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 410 (2018) 529-542.
610 611
[50] A. Kaufmann, S. Walker, Nested data independent MS/MS acquisition, Anal. Bioanal. Chem., 408 (2016) 5031-5040. 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 612
[51] M. Murphy, G. Ivosev, S. Tate, Y. Kang, N. Bloomfield, Using Scanning SWATH® Windows to
613
Improve Both Quantitative and Qualitative Data Over Conventional SWATH and IDA
614
Methodologies, 64th ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry and Allied Topics, San Antonio,
615
TX, 2016. [52] C.R. Weisbrod, J.K. Eng, M.R. Hoopmann, T. Baker, J.E. Bruce, Accurate peptide fragment
617
mass analysis: multiplexed peptide identification and quantification, J. Proteome Res., 11 (2012)
618
1621-1632.
RI PT
616
619
[53] P.C. Carvalho, X. Han, T. Xu, D. Cociorva, M.d.G. Carvalho, V.C. Barbosa, I.I.I.J.R. Yates,
620
XDIA: improving on the label-free data-independent analysis, Bioinformatics, 26 (2010) 847-
621
848.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
622
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
A
D
E
EP
C
Infusion time
A
LC time
AC C
Q1 m/z
B
TE D
M AN U
SC
R I Q1 m/z PT
A
LC time
LC time
Figure 1
LC time
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
CID
Fragments
RI PT
Precursors 1 amu
1 amu
SC
QqQ
QqQ
1 amu
0.01 amu
m/z 1 amu
B
m/z 0.01 amu
0.01 amu
C
AC C
EP
Q-TOF
TE D
m/z
M AN U
m/z 1 amu
A
m/z
m/z
X amu
Q-TOF
D
m/z
m/z
Figure 2