Abstract
There is a long-standing concern for the lack of reproducibility of the untargeted metabolomic approaches used in pharmaceutical research. Two types of human plasma samples were split into two batches and analyzed in two individual labs for untargeted GC–MS metabolomic profiling. The two labs used the same silylation sample preparation protocols but different instrumentation, data processing software, and database. There were 55 metabolites annotated reproducibly, independent of the labs. The median coefficient variations (CV%) of absolute spectra ion intensities in both labs were less than 30%. However, the comparison of normalized ion intensity among biological groups, were inconsistent across labs. Predicted power based on annotated metabolites was evaluated post various normalization, data transformation and scaling. For the first time our study reveals the numerical details about the variations in metabolomic annotation and relative quantification using plain inter-laboratory GC–MS untargeted metabolomic approaches. Especially we compare several commonly used post-acquisition strategies and found normalization could not strengthen the annotation accuracy or relative quantification precision of untargeted approach, instead it will impact future experimental design. Standardization of untargeted metabolomics protocols, including sample preparation, instrumentation, data processing, etc., is critical for comparison of untargeted data across labs.
Highlights
Metabolomics has become essential for understanding the impact of external or pathological stressors on a biological system[1]
Several inter-laboratory studies have attempted to validate the accuracy of the metabolomic approaches, either using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) of different magnetic fields[4,9], Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS)[10,11] or Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC–MS)[12]
One type of human plasma samples was SRM1950 purchased from National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST), which was fortified known metabolites in certain concentrations
Summary
Metabolomics has become essential for understanding the impact of external or pathological stressors on a biological system[1]. Several inter-laboratory studies have attempted to validate the accuracy of the metabolomic approaches, either using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) of different magnetic fields[4,9], Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS)[10,11] or Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC–MS)[12]. They did not address comparisons of heterogeneous instruments or methods nor the fact that strict protocol designs are difficult to extrapolate to real-life situations. Our primary goal was not to claim which lab’s assay was more accurate, instead we intended to point out the possible sources of variations of interlaboratory assays and initiated the awareness and efforts to reduce it
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.