Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

'parse' of very short acquisition files yields Unhandled Exception #2

Closed
colemathis opened this issue Oct 1, 2018 · 13 comments
Closed

'parse' of very short acquisition files yields Unhandled Exception #2

colemathis opened this issue Oct 1, 2018 · 13 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@colemathis
Copy link

I'm trying to use RawTools to parse a .raw file from a Thermo Orbitrap output on Windows 10.

The example files provided work correctly but my own file throws an error from the following

C:\RawTools-1.2.0>RawTools.exe parse -f "C:\Program Files\RawTools-1.2.0\DBD169_LEK_2.raw" -x

The error message is:

Unhandled Exception: System.IndexOutOfRangeException: Index was outside the bounds of the array.
   at RawTools.Data.Extraction.MethodData.ExtractMethodData(RawDataCollection rawData, IRawDataPlus rawFile) in C:\Users\Kevin\Documents\GSC\Projects\RawTools\RawTools\Data\Extraction.cs:line 484
   at RawTools.Program.DoStuff(ParseOptions opts) in C:\Users\Kevin\Documents\GSC\Projects\RawTools\RawTools\Program.cs:line 273
   at CommandLine.ParserResultExtensions.WithParsed[T](ParserResult`1 result, Action`1 action)
   at RawTools.Program.Main(String[] args) in C:\Users\Kevin\Documents\GSC\Projects\RawTools\RawTools\Program.cs:line 62

The file is attached for reference
DBD169_LEK_2.zip
@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

kevinkovalchik commented Oct 1, 2018 via email

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

The acquisition is really short. Was this a direct injection or something?

The small number of scans is what is causing the problem. It is tripping things up when calculating percentiles, but I can address this.

@chrishuges
Copy link
Collaborator

It appears to be a run off of a Nanomate source, so it is not surprising that it is so short I guess. The run is DDA though. The method parameters seem pretty standard.

The majority of the MS1 scans are empty, not sure if that is adding to the issue.

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

Yeah, because there is just the one peak in there and it is only about three MS1 scans wide in the TIC we are ending up with lots of empty lists and arrays, mostly from the precursor peaks which RawTools expects to be at least three scans in width.

We can address this by adding an option to turn off the precursor peak calculations. Or we can add functionality to fit the precursor peaks with a function (exponentially modified Gaussian or something) rather than interpolating, which would be desirable anyway.

I'll start with the first option since it will be quickest to get working with these files.

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

kevinkovalchik commented Oct 1, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Okay, here's a really quick fix. The main problem I ran into is there wasn't enough scans to calculate the precursor peak shapes, so I when that happens it now just doesn't do it and reports a zero for peak width and peak asymmetry. All the other metrics seem to be working fine (expect those depending on peak width and asymmetry, of course). I haven't tested QC with it yet. The compiled program with this fix is in the following zip file.

RawTools_20181001.zip

I'll work on better solution and keep you posted.

@kevinkovalchik kevinkovalchik changed the title 'parse' yields Unhandled Exception 'parse' of very short acquisition files yields Unhandled Exception Oct 1, 2018
@kevinkovalchik kevinkovalchik added the bug Something isn't working label Oct 1, 2018
@JRKrieger37
Copy link

Hi - Love the tool. I seem to have an issue with some files where I get these messages.

Processing /Users/jrkrieger/Dropbox/Transfer/Mital Raw Data for QC Report/E/Mital-GroupErpt_F11.raw
Indexing linked scan events: 100%
Extracting raw data: 76%
Unhandled Exception:
System.Collections.Generic.KeyNotFoundException: The given key '9139' was not present in the dictionary.
at RawTools.Data.Extraction.AllData.ExtractAll (RawTools.Data.Collections.RawDataCollection rawData, ThermoFisher.CommonCore.Data.Interfaces.IRawDataPlus rawFile) [0x00113] in :0
at RawTools.QC.QC.DoQc (RawTools.Data.Containers.QcParameters qcParameters) [0x002a7] in :0
at RawTools.Program.DoStuff (RawTools.ArgumentParser.QcOptions opts) [0x0025d] in :0
at RawTools.Program+<>c.

b__0_1 (RawTools.ArgumentParser.QcOptions opts) [0x00000] in :0
at CommandLine.ParserResultExtensions.WithParsed[T] (CommandLine.ParserResult1[T] result, System.Action1[T] action) [0x0001e] in :0
at RawTools.Program.Main (System.String[] args) [0x000e1] in :0
[ERROR] FATAL UNHANDLED EXCEPTION: System.Collections.Generic.KeyNotFoundException: The given key '9139' was not present in the dictionary.
at RawTools.Data.Extraction.AllData.ExtractAll (RawTools.Data.Collections.RawDataCollection rawData, ThermoFisher.CommonCore.Data.Interfaces.IRawDataPlus rawFile) [0x00113] in :0
at RawTools.QC.QC.DoQc (RawTools.Data.Containers.QcParameters qcParameters) [0x002a7] in :0
at RawTools.Program.DoStuff (RawTools.ArgumentParser.QcOptions opts) [0x0025d] in :0
at RawTools.Program+<>c.b__0_1 (RawTools.ArgumentParser.QcOptions opts) [0x00000] in :0
at CommandLine.ParserResultExtensions.WithParsed[T] (CommandLine.ParserResult1[T] result, System.Action1[T] action) [0x0001e] in :0
at RawTools.Program.Main (System.String[] args) [0x000e1] in :0

It is part of a dataset with >600 samples and all the other ones seem to work fine. They are fractions of a larger study. (link to .raw file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/3adzonyf2cyc711/Mital-GroupErpt_F11.raw?dl=0). Any clues would be great. I've also tried the 20181001.zip build attached above for fun but that didn't work either!

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

kevinkovalchik commented Oct 27, 2018 via email

@JRKrieger37
Copy link

JRKrieger37 commented Oct 27, 2018 via email

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

I looked at these files this morning. The issue is that there is a single MS3 scan in the raw file which is not indexed as a dependent of another scan, and when the programs gets up to extracting the data for that scan it fails because according to the linked scan index, it doesn't exist. The scan is question is 9139.

It looks like there is something wrong with this scan. I looked at the trailer for the scan and it has very little data in it. No master scan index, no SPS ions, no HCD energy, no isolation width, etc. I searched the MS2 scans and there was one that had no scan dependent, and that was scan 9137, so it is very likely that 9139 is the MS3 scan for 9137.

I don't know exactly what is up with the scan, but it seems like it there was likely some sort of error during the acquisition that resulted in the meta data being lost.

So as far as how to fix the problem so you can process the rest of the file, the lists used for scan iteration and the linked scan index are created separately, so this issue could be fixed by building those scan lists from the linked scan index instead of the raw scan numbers. That way any similarly corrupted scans get skipped.

I'll go ahead and work on that fix. However, the output table won't have any quant or meta data for the scans mentioned above, so you might want to do a search of scan 9137 to see if it is something relevant to your study.

kevinkovalchik added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 29, 2018
@kevinkovalchik
refine scan index based on scan dependents (issue #2)
2eb5991
@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

You can try this build:

RawTools_20181029.zip

It includes the change I mentioned above and processes both those files.

Hope it helps!

Kevin

@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

@colemathis
I didn't really come up with a better solution for looking at your data from the Nanomate source. The MS1 scans are just too far apart to calculate any metrics about peaks shapes, etc. I understand this is probably because the runs are so short you want to spend as little time on MS1 as possible, so peak shapes might not be as important. Is there any other aspect of the data that we aren't covering that would be useful to you?

@JRKrieger37
Copy link

JRKrieger37 commented Oct 30, 2018 via email

@chrishuges chrishuges mentioned this issue Nov 8, 2018
Closed
@kevinkovalchik
Copy link
Owner

No activity here for a month, so I'm going close it. Let me know if there is still an issue!

@kevinkovalchik kevinkovalchik mentioned this issue Dec 3, 2018
Closed
@ncarrut ncarrut mentioned this issue Aug 21, 2019
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@colemathis @chrishuges @kevinkovalchik @JRKrieger37