Abstract
Introduction
Imaging Mass Spectrometry (imaging MS) is a technology for spatial analytics that has experienced a significant uptake in recent years. A diverse set of applications and analytical platforms have been reported across the field of imaging MS for imaging molecules from many different chemical classes; but there is little quantified information about the overall composition of the field. Many questions exist, such as: is it used mainly for proteins or metabolites? How widespread is MALDI as compared to other types of ionisation sources (e.g., SIMS, DESI etc.)? What volume of data is generated worldwide? What are the leading application areas?
Methods
In order to obtain quantitative data to answer these and other questions, we have organized an online survey. Imaging MS practitioners were recruited and questioned about their backgrounds, application areas, which imaging MS technologies they use as well as providing information on what their current experimental throughput is.
Results
We found that imaging MS is more often used for metabolites/lipids/small molecules rather than for proteins/peptides. Moreover, the use of high-resolution mass spectrometry technologies constitutes a significant proportion of the data generated. We estimate that worldwide data generation currently exceeds 1 TB per day so, as a field, imaging MS has entered the big-data era. Our survey respondents report a continued need for computational tools which are required to aid in translating the spectral data produced into molecular knowledge.
Conclusion
With the results of this survey (http://metaspace2020.eu/survey2015), for the first time we can draw a picture of the diverse imaging MS community, identify areas of concentrated application and estimate the volume of data generated worldwide. This provides an insight into where cross-disciplinary developments need to be focussed in order to support this field through the coming years where there is an expectation of continued growth. The survey quantifies, for the first time, the breadth of technologies and applications that is spanned by imaging MS.
References
Aichler, M., & Walch, A. (2015). MALDI Imaging mass spectrometry: current frontiers and perspectives in pathology research and practice. Laboratory Investigation; A Journal of Technical Methods and Pathology, 95(4), 422–431.
Boughton, B. A., Thinagaran D., Sarabia D., et al. (2015). Mass spectrometry imaging for plant biology: a review. In Phytochemistry reviews: proceedings of the Phytochemical Society of Europe, Springer : 1–44.
Gessel, M. M., Norris, J. L., & Caprioli, R. M. (2014). MALDI imaging mass spectrometry: Spatial molecular analysis to enable a new age of discovery. Journal of Proteomics, 107, 71–82.
Goodwin, R. J. A., Nilsson, A., Mackay, C. L., et al. (2016). Exemplifying the screening power of mass spectrometry imaging over label-based technologies for simultaneous monitoring of drug and metabolite distributions in tissue sections. Journal of Biomolecular Screening, 21(2), 187–193.
Heeren, R. M. A., Smith, D. F., Stauber, J., et al. (2009). Imaging mass spectrometry: Hype or hope? Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 20(6), 1006–1014.
Palmer, A. D., & Alexandrov, T. (2015). Serial 3D imaging mass spectrometry at its tipping point. Analytical Chemistry, 87(8), 4055–4062.
Schramm, T., Hester, A., Klinkert, I., et al. (2012). imzML—A common data format for the flexible exchange and processing of mass spectrometry imaging data. Journal of Proteomics, 75(16), 5106–5110.
Spengler, B. (2015). Mass spectrometry imaging of biomolecular information. Analytical Chemistry, 87(1), 64–82.
Trim, P. J., & Snel, M. F. (2016). Small molecule MALDI MS imaging: Current technologies and future challenges. Methods,. doi:10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.01.011.
van Hove, E. R. A., Smith, D. F., & Heeren, R. M. A. (2010). A concise review of mass spectrometry imaging. Journal of Chromatography. A, 1217(25), 3946–3954.
Funding
We acknowledge funding from the European Union’s Horizon2020 program under the Grant agreement No. 634402 (METASPACE).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
DT is the Managing Director and TA is the Scientific Director of SCiLS GmbH, a company providing software for imaging MS. However, no data was concealed for proprietary purposes with all the survey data and results openly available at http://metaspace2020.eu/survey2015.
Ethical approval
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. Survey participation was voluntary and confidential. To ensure informed consent of all participants, the scope and purpose of questions was explained beforehand and participants could withdraw at any point during the survey.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Palmer, A., Trede, D. & Alexandrov, T. Where imaging mass spectrometry stands: here are the numbers. Metabolomics 12, 107 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-016-1047-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-016-1047-0