Abstract
Metabolomics experiments generate highly complex datasets, which are time and work-intensive, sometimes even error-prone if inspected manually. Therefore, new methods for automated, fast, reproducible, and accurate data processing and dereplication are required. Here, we present UmetaFlow, a computational workflow for untargeted metabolomics that combines algorithms for data pre-processing, spectral matching, molecular formula and structural predictions, and an integration to the GNPS workflows Feature-Based Molecular Networking and Ion Identity Molecular Networking for downstream analysis. UmetaFlow is implemented as a Snakemake workflow, making it easy to use, scalable, and reproducible. For more interactive computing, visualization, as well as development, the workflow is also implemented in Jupyter notebooks using the Python programming language and a set of Python bindings to the OpenMS algorithms (pyOpenMS). Finally, UmetaFlow is also offered as a web-based Graphical User Interface for parameter optimization and processing of smaller-sized datasets. UmetaFlow was validated with in-house LC-MS/MS datasets of actinomycetes producing known secondary metabolites, as well as commercial standards, and it detected all expected features and accurately annotated 76% of the molecular formulas and 65% of the structures. As a more generic validation, the publicly available MTBLS733 and MTBLS736 datasets were used for benchmarking, and UmetaFlow detected more than 90% of all ground truth features and performed exceptionally well in quantification and discriminating marker selection. We anticipate that UmetaFlow will provide a useful platform for the interpretation of large metabolomics datasets.
Supplementary materials
Title
Additional File 1.
Description
Figure S1. A detailed overview of UmetaFlow. Table S1. Important instrument, method, and sample-specific parameters for UmetaFlow parameter optimization. Table S2. The optimal parameters for OpenMS (UmetaFlow) for feature detection, formula, and structural predictions of the in-house datasets. Table S3. Feature detection, structural and formula predictions for pyracrimycin A in Streptomyces sp. NBC 00162, Streptomyces sp. CA-210063 and Streptomyces eridani. Table S4. The optimal parameters for OpenMS (UmetaFlow) for feature detection, quantification, and marker selection of the MTBLS733 QE HF dataset. Table S5. Feature identification, quantification, and marker selection performance of different untargeted metabolomic data processing software using the benchmark dataset MTBLS733. Table S6. The optimal parameters for OpenMS (UmetaFlow) for feature detection, quantification, and marker selection of the MTBLS736 tripleTOF dataset. Table S7. Feature identification, quantification, and marker selection performance of different untargeted metabolomic data processing software using the benchmark dataset MTBLS736.
Actions
Title
Additional File 2.
Description
SI_Table_S8: All the raw in-house data were both manually analyzed and through UmetaFlow for method validation.
Actions
Title
Additional File 3.
Description
SI_Table_S9: Feature detection, structural and formula predictions for commercial standards germicidins A and B, kanamycin, tetracycline hydrochloride, thiostreptone, globomycin, ampicillin and apramycin.
Actions
Title
Additional File 4.
Description
SI_Table_S10: Feature detection, structural and formula predictions for kirromycin and desferrioxamine B from extracts of Streptomyces collinus Tü 365 and epemicins A and B from extracts of Kutzneria sp. CA-103260.
Actions