Search

In mass spectrometry-based metabolomics, the differences in the analytical results from different laboratories/machines are an issue to be considered because various types of machines are used in each laboratory. Moreover, the analytical methods are unique to each laboratory. It is important to understand the reality of inter-laboratory differences in metabolomics. Therefore, we have evaluated whether the differences in analytical methods, with the exception sample pretreatment and including metabolite extraction, are involved in the inter-laboratory differences or not. In this study, nine facilities are evaluated for inter-laboratory comparisons of metabolomic analysis. Identical dried samples prepared from human and mouse plasma are distributed to each laboratory, and the metabolites are measured without the pretreatment that is unique to each laboratory. In these measurements, hydrophilic and hydrophobic metabolites are analyzed using 11 and 7 analytical methods, respectively. The metabolomic data acquired at each laboratory are integrated, and the differences in the metabolomic data from the laboratories are evaluated. No substantial difference in the relative quantitative data (human/mouse) for a little less than 50% of the detected metabolites is observed, and the hydrophilic metabolites have fewer differences between the laboratories compared with hydrophobic metabolites. From evaluating selected quantitatively guaranteed metabolites, the proportion of metabolites without the inter-laboratory differences is observed to be slightly high. It is difficult to resolve the inter-laboratory differences in metabolomics because all laboratories cannot prepare the same analytical environments. However, the results from this study indicate that the inter-laboratory differences in metabolomic data are due to measurement and data analysis rather than sample preparation, which will facilitate the understanding of the problems in metabolomics studies involving multiple laboratories.

Background: One of the current problems in the field of metabolomics is the difficulty in integrating data collected using different equipment at different facilities, because many metabolomic methods have been developed independently and are unique to each laboratory. Methods: In this study, we examined whether different analytical methods among 12 different laboratories provided comparable relative quantification data for certain metabolites. Identical samples extracted from two cell lines (HT-29 and AsPc-1) were distributed to each facility, and hydrophilic and hydrophobic metabolite analyses were performed using the daily routine protocols of each laboratory. Results: The results indicate that there was no difference in the relative quantitative data (HT-29/AsPc-1) for about half of the measured metabolites among the laboratories and assay methods. Data review also revealed that errors in relative quantification were derived from issues such as erroneous peak identification, insufficient peak separation, a difference in detection sensitivity, derivatization reactions, and extraction solvent interference. Conclusion: The results indicated that relative quantification data obtained at different facilities and at different times would be integrated and compared by using a reference materials shared for data normalization.

Metabolic fingerprinting by mass spectrometry aims at the comprehensive, semiquantitative analysis of metabolites. Isotope dilution, if successfully implemented, may provide a more reliable, relative quantification. Therefore, the 13 C labeled yeast extract of the IROA TruQuant kit was added as an internal standard (IS) to human urine samples measured in full-scan mode on a high-performance liquid chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometer (HPLC-TOFMS) system. The isotope ratio approach enabled the analysis of 112 metabolites. The correlation with reference data did not improve significantly using 12 C/ 13 C ratios compared to absolute 12 C peak areas. Moreover, using an intricate 13 C-labeled standard increased the complexity of the mass spectra, which made correct signal annotation more challenging. On the positive side, the ratio approach helps to reduce batch effects, but it does not perform better than computational methods such as the "removebatcheffect" function in the R package Limma.

In mass spectrometry-based metabolomics, the differences in the analytical results from different laboratories/machines are an issue to be considered because various types of machines are used in each laboratory. Moreover, the analytical methods are unique to each laboratory. It is important to understand the reality of inter-laboratory differences in metabolomics. Therefore, we have evaluated whether the differences in analytical methods, with the exception sample pretreatment and including metabolite extraction, are involved in the inter-laboratory differences or not. In this study, nine facilities are evaluated for inter-laboratory comparisons of metabolomic analysis. Identical dried samples prepared from human and mouse plasma are distributed to each laboratory, and the metabolites are measured without the pretreatment that is unique to each laboratory. In these measurements, hydrophilic and hydrophobic metabolites are analyzed using 11 and 7 analytical methods, respectively. The metabolomic data acquired at each laboratory are integrated, and the differences in the metabolomic data from the laboratories are evaluated. No substantial difference in the relative quantitative data (human/mouse) for a little less than 50% of the detected metabolites is observed, and the hydrophilic metabolites have fewer differences between the laboratories compared with hydrophobic metabolites. From evaluating selected quantitatively guaranteed metabolites, the proportion of metabolites without the inter-laboratory differences is observed to be slightly high. It is difficult to resolve the inter-laboratory differences in metabolomics because all laboratories cannot prepare the same analytical environments. However, the results from this study indicate that the inter-laboratory differences in metabolomic data are due to measurement and data analysis rather than sample preparation, which will facilitate the understanding of the problems in metabolomics studies involving multiple laboratories.

Background: One of the current problems in the field of metabolomics is the difficulty in integrating data collected using different equipment at different facilities, because many metabolomic methods have been developed independently and are unique to each laboratory., Methods: In this study, we examined whether different analytical methods among 12 different laboratories provided comparable relative quantification data for certain metabolites. Identical samples extracted from two cell lines (HT-29 and AsPc-1) were distributed to each facility, and hydrophilic and hydrophobic metabolite analyses were performed using the daily routine protocols of each laboratory., Results: The results indicate that there was no difference in the relative quantitative data (HT-29/AsPc-1) for about half of the measured metabolites among the laboratories and assay methods. Data review also revealed that errors in relative quantification were derived from issues such as erroneous peak identification, insufficient peak separation, a difference in detection sensitivity, derivatization reactions, and extraction solvent interference., Conclusion: The results indicated that relative quantification data obtained at different facilities and at different times would be integrated and compared by using a reference materials shared for data normalization.