Inconsistent peak areas ('into') with Matched Filter Param
0
0
Entering edit mode
Yuki ▴ 10
@yuki-24136
Last seen 12 days ago

Hi all,

I'm having trouble getting reproducible peak areas with findChromPeaks and MatchedFilterParam on centroided high-res MS data. While the peak height (maxo) is spot-on with the manual integration results from the instrument software (Thermo Freestyle), the peak areas are in may cases off by up to 50%.

It seems this is strongly dependent on the FWHM setting in the MatchedFilterParam object, but there is no setting that give consistent results over the range in peak widths.

Am I missing something or is this just how the algorithm models the peak (instead of measuring the area under the peak)?

PS: I tried CentWaveParam first, but this one was missing obvious peaks entirely (and had the same issue with peak areas)

Thanks a lot, -Y

Settings used:

Object of class: MatchedFilterParam Parameters: binSize: 0.01 impute: none baseValue:
distance:
fwhm: 6 sigma: 2.547987 max: 50 snthresh: 100 steps: 1 mzdiff: 0.03 index: FALSE

xcms • 111 views
ADD COMMENT
0
Entering edit mode

What exactly do you mean with reproducible peak areas? Do you get different peak areas each time you run the findChromPeaks with MatchedFilterParam on the same file?

ADD REPLY
1
Entering edit mode

Hi Johannes,

What I mean is that compared to the manual integration performed on the EIC in the Thermo Fisher software, the 'into' results of Matched Filter are off bu up to 50%. The results shift around depending on the FWHM parameter, but never come close to the 'real' values (from the manual integration). Repeated call to findChromPeaks, however, do return the same values.

I would understand (and accept) if the offset was 10% or less, but this seems to be some bug to me (or a user problem on my end).

Thanks for the help!

ADD REPLY
0
Entering edit mode

Thanks for the clarification! What I suggest is to evaluate the detected chromatographic peak extracting the EIC (with the chromatogram function) and plot it. Might be that not the full peak is integrated. You might find some information on that in the package vignette or in this tutorial.

Also, I would give centWave another try - the advantage over matchedFilter is that it can find chromatographic peaks with different rt widths. But you need to set the peakwidth parameter based on the expected size of your peaks. If you have peaks with an average peak width of e.g. 4 seconds you should set it to peakwidth = c(2, 10) - but this really depends on your data. Also, I would suggest to use integrate = 2 , which IMO better defines the peak boundaries/edges.

ADD REPLY

Login before adding your answer.

Traffic: 460 users visited in the last hour
Help About
FAQ
Access RSS
API
Stats

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Powered by the version 2.3.6