| Literature DB >> 23146204 |
C Hart Poskar1, Jan Huege, Christian Krach, Mathias Franke, Yair Shachar-Hill, Björn H Junker.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metabolic flux analysis has become an established method in systems biology and functional genomics. The most common approach for determining intracellular metabolic fluxes is to utilize mass spectrometry in combination with stable isotope labeling experiments. However, before the mass spectrometric data can be used it has to be corrected for biases caused by naturally occurring stable isotopes, by the analytical technique(s) employed, or by the biological sample itself. Finally the MS data and the labeling information it contains have to be assembled into a data format usable by flux analysis software (of which several dedicated packages exist). Currently the processing of mass spectrometric data is time-consuming and error-prone requiring peak by peak cut-and-paste analysis and manual curation. In order to facilitate high-throughput metabolic flux analysis, the automation of multiple steps in the analytical workflow is necessary.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23146204 PMCID: PMC3563546 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-295
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Bioinformatics ISSN: 1471-2105 Impact factor: 3.169
Figure 1Illustration of the mass isotopomer distribution vector (MDV) of a three carbon compound, e.g. alanine. The signals with the grey background, the MDV, comprise the fractions of completely unlabeled (M+0), singly labeled (M+1), doubly labeled (M+2), and completely labeled (M+numC in general, i.e. M+3 in this example) analyte. The preceding (M-n) and following (M+numC+n) masses, which form a boundary around the analyte masses, are indicated.
Comparison of and other available MS correction tools
| - | - | - | √ | - | |
| √ | - | √ | √ | - | |
| | | | | | |
| | √ | √ | √ | √ | √e |
| | - | - | √ | √ | - |
| | - | - | √/√ | - | - |
| | | | | | |
| | - | - | √/√ | - | - |
| | - | - | √ | - | √ |
| | - | - | - | √ | - |
| - | - | - | √ | √ | |
| - | √ | √ | - | - | |
| - | √ | √ | √ | - | |
| √/- | √/√ | √/√ | - | √/√ | |
| GC | GC/LC | GC/LC | GC | GC/LC | |
| proprietary | - | free | proprietary | proprietary | |
| √ | √ | √ | - | - |
a directly from chromatogram files like net-cdf files.
b multiple compounds in multiple chromatograms.
c the data processing is independent from the utilized labeling substrate (e.g. uniformly labeled or different positional labeling) and can be adapted to other elements then carbon (e.g. nitrogen, oxygen).
d requires additional software in order to be used like MATLAB or PERL.
e functional support is provided but not directly integrated.
Abbreviatons: NA - Natural Abundance; NOI - Naturally Occuring stable Isotopes; OBM - Original Biomass; GC - Gas Chromatography; LC - Liquid Chromatography.
Figure 2Overview of the MFA workflow. This scheme of the data processing steps highlight (blue background) those implemented in iMS2Flux. The bars on the right indicate the reduction of “hands on time” (in red) for the scientist by automation (in blue) of the MS data processing, bringing MFA one step closer towards high-throughput. Colour bar a) illustrating the standard workflow and colour bar b) illustrating the automated workflow with iMS2Flux.
Overview of the analytes currently supported by and the analytical platform on which they can be measured on
| monomers from storage compounds: | GC-MS | compound specific derivatization, multiple analytes/multiple fragments | Allen et al. 2007, Junker et al. 2007 |
| proteinogenic amino acids (AA) from proteins, glycerol (GY) and fatty acids (FA) derived from lipids, glucose (GL) from starch | |||
| soluble metabolites (SM): | GC-MS | compound specific derivatization, multiple analytes/multiple fragments | Huege et al. 2007, 2010 |
| sugars, amino and organic acids, et al. | |||
| plant cell wall precursors (CW): | LC-MS | multiple analytes/single fragments | Alonso et al. 2010 |
| sugars, sugar-phosphates and nucleotide-sugars |
Figure 3Overview of MS data correction methods. The comparison of MDV intensities is shown as they were measured (on the left) and as they are after applying the respective correction method (on the right). Also illustrated is the bias of the respective distortions: A) correcting for NOIs B) correcting for proton loss [the correction for proton gain follows the same principles] C) the influence the OBM.