Discrepancies in Biomarker Identification in Peak Picking Strategies in Untargeted Metabolomics Analyses of Cells, Tissues, and Biofluids

Different software and algorithms are available for peak picking in nontargeted metabolomics, and each may have its own strengths and limitations. The choice of the peak picking method can significantly influence the results obtained, including the number and identity of metabolites detected, their quantification, and subsequent biomarker analysis. The impact of peak picking by different tools in an untargeted metabolomics-based biomarker study is largely understated. This study compares two popular open-source software tools for peak picking in untargeted metabolomics of cancer cells, tissues, and biofluids: XCMS and MZmine 2. The investigation evaluates the impact of these peak picking algorithms on biomarker identification after careful noise filtering by blank feature filtering (BFF). We found significant discrepancy between the results obtained from XCMS and MZmine 2, regardless of the sample types, solvent gradient phases, retention time, or mass-to-charge ratio (<i>m</i>/<i>z</i>) tolerances used. Notably, this study revealed significant disagreement between peak picking tools in the context of metabolite-based biomarker study after BFF and highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating and selecting appropriate peak picking tools to ensure reliable and accurate results in untargeted metabolomics research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Proteome Research
Published
2025-11-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5c00434
Primary Topic
Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Discrepancies in Biomarker Identification in Peak Picking Strategies in Untargeted Metabolomics Analyses of Cells, Tissues, and Biofluids

Laurel E. Meke, Timothy J. Garrett, Iqbal Mahmud, Taylor A. Harmon
Journal of Proteome Research
Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
article

Discrepancies in Biomarker Identification in Peak Picking Strategies in Untargeted Metabolomics Analyses of Cells, Tissues, and Biofluids

Laurel E. Meke, Timothy J. Garrett, Iqbal Mahmud, Taylor A. Harmon
article en

Abstract

Different software and algorithms are available for peak picking in nontargeted metabolomics, and each may have its own strengths and limitations. The choice of the peak picking method can significantly influence the results obtained, including the number and identity of metabolites detected, their quantification, and subsequent biomarker analysis. The impact of peak picking by different tools in an untargeted metabolomics-based biomarker study is largely understated. This study compares two popular open-source software tools for peak picking in untargeted metabolomics of cancer cells, tissues, and biofluids: XCMS and MZmine 2. The investigation evaluates the impact of these peak picking algorithms on biomarker identification after careful noise filtering by blank feature filtering (BFF). We found significant discrepancy between the results obtained from XCMS and MZmine 2, regardless of the sample types, solvent gradient phases, retention time, or mass-to-charge ratio (<i>m</i>/<i>z</i>) tolerances used. Notably, this study revealed significant disagreement between peak picking tools in the context of metabolite-based biomarker study after BFF and highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating and selecting appropriate peak picking tools to ensure reliable and accurate results in untargeted metabolomics research.

Journal of Proteome ResearchVol. 24(12)
University of Florida (US), Integrated Oncology (United States) (US), Liberal Arts University (RU), Florida College (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.