Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 13;9(4):72. doi: 10.3390/metabo9040072

Table 3.

Computed spectral similarity scores between experimental and predicted ESI-MS/MS spectra at three energy levels (10, 20, and 40 eV). The results show higher similarities, and thus an improvement when using a rule-based approach (CFM-ID 3.0) over a combinatorial one (CFM-ID 2.0) for the prediction of lipid ESI-MS/MS spectra. The spectral similarities of the LipidBlast-generated consensus spectra further illustrate this trend. When available, the same LipidBlast-generated consensus spectrum was used for comparisons at each energy level. N/A corresponds to cases where (1) the adduct type was not covered by CFM-ID 2.0 at all, or (2) the adduct type was not covered by LipidBlast for the chemical class to which the test compound belongs.

Compound Adduct Energy (eV) CFM-ID 3.0 (Score) CFM-ID 2.0 (Score) LipidBlast (Score)
PA(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 10 1.00 0.36 0.00
PS(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 10 1.00 0.31 0.00
CL(18:0/18:0/18:0/18:0) [M−2H](2H) 10 0.98 N/A 0.00
DG(18:0/20:4/0:0) [M+Na]+ 10 0.92 0.00 N/A
PA(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 20 0.55 0.02 0.00
PS(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 20 0.98 0.03 0.00
CL(18:0/18:0/18:0/18:0) [M−2H](2H) 20 0.97 N/A 0.12
DG(18:0/20:4/0:0) [M+Na]+ 20 0.93 0.00 N/A
PA(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 40 0.96 0.03 0.90
PS(16:0/18:1(9Z)) [M−H] 40 0.92 0.10 0.91
CL(18:0/18:0/18:0/18:0) [M−2H](2H) 40 0.91 N/A 0.89
DG(18:0/20:4/0:0) [M+Na]+ 40 0.18 0.00 N/A
PC(16:0/16:0) [M+H]+ 40 0.88 0.07 0.13
TG(18:1/18:1/18:2) [M+NH4]+ 40 0.78 0.01 0.84