I'm finding large errors between the reported precursor m/z and the theoretical precursor m/z for records where the adduct is labeled [M+Na]+, [M+NH4]+, and [M+K]+. In all the cases I checked (and I would hypothesize this is true for every such case), it appears that the precursor m/z would be correctly explained instead by [M+H]+. The source of my data is: drug_plus.mgf as https://zenodo.org/record/7531170. A particular case is as follows:
BEGIN IONS
PEPMASS=359.1635
RT=N/A
IONMODE=Positive
ADDUCT=[M+Na]+
CHARGE=1
ID=DHSUYTOATWAVLW
SMILES=CC1(C[C@@H]1/C(=N/C(=C\CCCCSC[C@@H](C(=O)O)N)/C(=O)O)/O)C
FORMULA=C16H26N2O5S
FILENAME=NA
DrugBank.ID=NA
INCHIKEY=DHSUYTOATWAVLW-HPTVMLIKSA-N
CPD=NA
Status=NA
CAS=NA
NAME=Massbank:AU212932%%CCMSLIB00005776979
MSLEVEL=2
TIC=3396
(the rest of the record is omitted). Note that the exact mass of the compound here is 358.15624311, so [M+H]+ would explain the given precursor m/z, whereas [M+Na]+ would be much too large.
I'm finding large errors between the reported precursor m/z and the theoretical precursor m/z for records where the adduct is labeled [M+Na]+, [M+NH4]+, and [M+K]+. In all the cases I checked (and I would hypothesize this is true for every such case), it appears that the precursor m/z would be correctly explained instead by [M+H]+. The source of my data is:
drug_plus.mgfas https://zenodo.org/record/7531170. A particular case is as follows:(the rest of the record is omitted). Note that the exact mass of the compound here is 358.15624311, so [M+H]+ would explain the given precursor m/z, whereas [M+Na]+ would be much too large.