Advertisement

Does Deconvolution Help to Disentangle the Complexities of Mammal Odors?

  • Peter Apps

Abstract

Mammal odors (in the broad sense) are notorious for chemical complexity and small quantities of individual components. No single chromatographic separation can resolve all the components, and so some of them are partially or completely obscured by others. I have tested how useful deconvolution (AnalyzerPro, SpectralWorks; http://www.spectralworks.com/analyzerpro.html) is for detecting hidden components in GC–MS data from methanol extracts of African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) urine and preputial gland secretion.

Deconvolution is better and much faster than an experienced human at finding hidden peaks, but when low detection limits and maximum separation are prioritized, shortcomings in analytical repeatability confound consistent component assignments across samples. In addition to random variation and drift in retention times, and increased retention due to overloading, some compounds showed marked changes in relative retention. As chromatographic peaks get smaller, minor fragments in their mass spectra are lost in the noise, and this affects the matches between spectra. Fluctuating background that coincides with the elution of real peaks generates false components.

To get the best from deconvolution, separations need repeatable retention times, similar peak sizes in different samples, and low and consistent background noise. Deconvolution is an extremely powerful tool, but it does not fix analytical shortcomings, and the results from real data need to be checked and refined manually.

Keywords

Relative Retention Time Cyanuric Acid Baseline Drift Asian Elephant Peak Size 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to John Moncur of SpectralWorks who provided AnalyzerPro free of charge, the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation which funded the research by a grant to the Botswana Predator Conservation Trust, Tico McNutt, director of the Trust, Neil Jordan and Geoff Gillfillan who collected most of the samples and Lesego Mmualefe who analyzed many of them. Permission to conduct research in Botswana was granted by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks under permit number EWT 3/3/8 XXIV.

References

  1. Aggio R, Villas-Bôas SG, Ruggiero K (2011) Metab: an R package for high-throughput analysis of metabolomics data generated by GC-MS. Bioinformatics 27:2316–2318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albone ES (1984) Mammalian semiochemistry. The investigation of chemical signals between mammals. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  3. Apps PJ (2006) Low cost, robust, in-house hardware for heart cutting two-dimensional gas chromatography. J Sep Sci 29:2338–2349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Apps PJ (2013) Are mammal olfactory signals hiding right under our noses? Naturwissenschaften 100:487–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Apps P, Mmualefe L (2012) A versatile cryo-focussing flow switching gas chromatography inlet for trace analysis of intractable compounds. J Chromatogr A 1257:171–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Apps P, Mmualefe L, McNutt JW (2012) Identification of volatiles from the secretions and excretions of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). J Chem Ecol 38:1450–1461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Apps P, Mmualefe L, McNutt JW (2013) A reverse engineering approach to identifying which compounds to bioassay for signaling activity in the scent marks of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus). In: East ML, Dehnhard M (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates XII. Springer, Berlin, pp 417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker TC (2014) It’s still simple: signal plus response equals communication. J Chem Ecol 40:310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Burger B (2005) Mammalian semiochemicals. Top Curr Chem 240:231–278Google Scholar
  10. Colby BN (1992) Spectral deconvolution for overlapping GC/MS components. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 3:558–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Davis J (1999) Prediction of numbers of singlets, doublets, and triplets in poorly resolved separations by statistical-overlap theory. J Chromatogr A 83:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis JM, Giddings JC (1983) Statistical theory of component overlap in multicomponent chromatograms. Anal Chem 55:418–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deans DR (1968) A new technique for heart cutting in gas chromatography. Chromatographia 1:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dehnhard M, Rohrmann H, Kauffold J (2013) Measurement of 16-androstenes (5α-androst-16-en-3-one, 5α-androst-16-en-3α-ol, 5α-androst-16-en-3ß-ol) in saliva of German landrace and Göttingen minipig boars. In: East ML, Dehnhard M (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates XII. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorries KM, Adkins-Regan E, Halpern BP (1995) Olfactory sensitivity to the pheromone, androstenone, is sexually dimorphic in the pig. Physiol Behav 57:255–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Du X, Zeisel SH (2013) Spectral deconvolution for gas chromatography mass spectrometry- based metabolomics: current status and future perspectives. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 4:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Enke CG, Nagels LJ (2011) Undetected components in natural mixtures: how many? What concentrations? Do they account for chemical noise? What is needed to detect them? Anal Chem 83:2539–2546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Giddings JC (1987) Concepts and comparisons in multidimensional separations. J High Res Chromatogr Chromatogr Comm 10:319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giddings JC (1995) Sample dimensionality: a predictor of order-disorder in component peak distribution in multidimensional separation. J Chromatogr A 703:3–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodwin TE, Broederdorf LJ, Burkert BA, Hirwa IH, Mark BD, Waldrip ZW, Kopper RA, Sutherland MV, Freeman EW, Hollister-Smith JA, Schulte BA (2012) Chemical signals of elephant musth: temporal aspects of microbially-mediated modifications. J Chem Ecol 38:81–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. He J, Ma L, Kim S, Schwartz J, Santilli M, Wood C, Durnin MH, Yu CR (2010) Distinct signals conveyed by pheromone concentrations to the mouse vomeronasal organ. J Neurosci 30:7473–7483PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kessler N, Neuweger H, Bonte A, Langenkämper G, Niehaus K, Nattkemper TW, Goesmann A (2013) MeltDB 2.0 – advances of the metabolomics software system. Bioinformatics 29:2452–2459PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kwak J, Willse A, Matsumura K, Opiekun MC, Yi W, Preti G, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK (2008) Genetically-based olfactory signatures persist despite dietary variation. PLoS One 3:e3591PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwak J, Grigsby CC, Rizki MM, Preti G, Köksal M, Josue J, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK (2012) Differential binding between volatile ligands and major urinary proteins due to genetic variation in mice. Physiol Behav 107:112–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Laska M, Fendt M, Wieser A, Endres T, Hernandez Salazar LT, Apfelbach R (2005) Detecting danger—or just another odorant? Olfactory sensitivity for the fox odor component 2,4,5-trimethylthiazoline in four species of mammals. Physiol Behav 84:211–215CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Leinders-Zufall T, Lane AP, Puche AC, Ma W, Novotny MV, Shipley MT, Zufall F (2000) Ultrasensitive pheromone detection by mammalian vomeronasal neurons. Nature 405:792–796CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Likic V (2009) Extraction of pure components from overlapped signals in gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). BioData Min 2:6. doi: 10.1186/1756-0381-2-6 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lu H, Dunn WB, Shen H, Kell DB, Liang Y (2008) Comparative evaluation of software for deconvolution of metabolomics data based on GC-TOF-MS. Trends Anal Chem 27:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luedemann A, Strassburg K, Erban A, Kopka J (2008) TagFinder for the quantitative analysis of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS)-based metabolite profiling experiments. Bioinformatics 24:732–737CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. MacNamara K, Leardi R, Hoffmann AI (2003) Developments in 2D GC with heartcutting. LC-GC Eur 16:14–22Google Scholar
  31. Marriott PJ, Morrison PD, Shellie RA, Dunn MS, Sari E, Ryan D (2003) Multidimensional and comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography. LC-GC Eur 16:23–31Google Scholar
  32. Meyer M, Peters FT, Maurer HH (2010) Automated mass spectral deconvolution and identification system for GC-MS screening for drugs, poisons, and metabolites in urine. Clin Chem 56:575–584CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Moulton DG, Marshall DA (1976) The performance of dogs in detecting alpha-ionone in the vapor phase. J Comp Physiol A 110:287–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nielsen L, Eaton D, Wright D, Schmidt-French B (2006) Characteristic odors of Tadarida brasiliensis mexicana Chiroptera: Molossidae. J Cave Karst Stud 68:27–31Google Scholar
  35. O’Callaghan S, De Souza DP, Isaac A, Wang Q, Hodkinson L, Olshansky M, Erwin T, Appelbe B, Tull DL, Roessner U, Bacic A, McConville MJ, Likić VA (2012) PyMS: a Python toolkit for processing of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) data. Application and comparative study of selected tools. BMC Bioinf 13:115–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasmussen L, Lee TD, Zhang A, Roelofs WL, Daves GD (1997) Purification, identification, concentration and bioactivity of (Z)-7-dodecen-1-yl acetate: sex pheromone of the female Asian elephant, Elephas maximus. Chem Senses 22:417–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Schure MR, Davis JM (2011) The statistical overlap theory of chromatography using power law (fractal) statistics. J Chromatogr A 1218:9297–9306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Whitten WK, Wilson MC, Wilson SR, Jorgenson JW, Novotny M, Carmack M (1980) Induction of marking behavior in wild red foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.) by synthetic urinary constituents. J Chem Ecol 6:49–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willse A, Belcher AM, Preti G, Wahl JH, Thresher M, Yang P, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK (2005) Identification of major histocompatibility complex-regulated body odorants by statistical analysis of a comparative gas chromatography/mass spectrometry experiment. Anal Chem 77:2348–2361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Wyatt TD (2014) Pheromones and animal behaviour chemical signals and signatures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Paul G. Allen Family Foundation Laboratory for Wildlife ChemistryBotswana Predator Conservation TrustMaunBotswana

Personalised recommendations