Evidence Hub

ISiCLE: A molecular collision cross section calculation pipeline for establishing large in silico reference libraries for compound identification

S. Colby, Dennis G. Thomas, Jamie R. Nuñez, D. Baxter, K. Glaesemann, Joseph Brown, Meg Pirrung, N. Govind et al.

2018

6 citations

Abstract

Comprehensive and confident identifications of metabolites and other chemicals in complex samples will revolutionize our understanding of the role these chemically diverse molecules play in biological systems. Despite recent advances, metabolomics studies still result in the detection of a disproportionate number of features than cannot be confidently assigned to a chemical structure. This inadequacy is driven by the single most significant limitation in metabolomics: the reliance on reference libraries constructed by analysis of authentic reference chemicals. To this end, we have developed the in silico chemical library engine (ISiCLE), a high-performance computing-friendly cheminformatics workflow for generating libraries of chemical properties. In the instantiation described here, we predict probable three-dimensional molecular conformers using chemical identifiers as input, from which collision cross sections (CCS) are derived. The approach employs state-of-the-art first-principles simulation, distinguished by use of molecular dynamics, quantum chemistry, and ion mobility calculations to generate structures and libraries, all without training data. Importantly, optimization of ISiCLE included a refactoring of the popular MOBCAL code for trajectory-based mobility calculations, improving its computational efficiency by over two orders of magnitude. Calculated CCS values were validated against 1,983 experimentally-measured CCS values and compared to previously reported CCS…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a simulation / modelling, done in computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free