BACKGROUND: Metabolomics is a valuable tool with applications in almost all life science areas. There is an increasing awareness of the essential need for high-quality biospecimens in studies applying omics technologies and biomarker research. Tools to detect effects of both blood and plasma processing are a key for assuring reproducible and credible results. We report on the response of the human plasma metabolome to common preanalytical variations in a comprehensive metabolomics analysis to reveal such high-quality markers. METHODS: Human EDTA blood was subjected to preanalytical variations while being processed to plasma: microclotting, prolonged processing times at different temperatures, hemolysis, and contamination with buffy layer. In a second experiment, EDTA plasma was incubated at different temperatures for up to 16 h. Samples were subjected to GC-MS and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based metabolite profiling (MxP™ Broad Profiling) complemented by targeted methods, i.e., sphingoids (as part of MxP™ Lipids), MxP™ Catecholamines, and MxP™ Eicosanoids. RESULTS: Short-term storage of blood, hemolysis, and short-term storage of noncooled plasma resulted in statistically significant increases of 4% to 19% and decreases of 8% to 12% of the metabolites. Microclotting, contamination of plasma with buffy layer, and short-term storage of cooled plasma were of less impact on the metabolome (0% to 11% of metabolites increased, 0% to 8% decreased). CONCLUSIONS: The response of the human plasma metabolome to preanalytical variation demands implementation of thorough quality assurance and QC measures to obtain reproducible and credible results from metabolomics studies. Metabolites identified as sensitive to preanalytics can be used to control for sample quality.
BACKGROUND: Metabolomics is a valuable tool with applications in almost all life science areas. There is an increasing awareness of the essential need for high-quality biospecimens in studies applying omics technologies and biomarker research. Tools to detect effects of both blood and plasma processing are a key for assuring reproducible and credible results. We report on the response of the human plasma metabolome to common preanalytical variations in a comprehensive metabolomics analysis to reveal such high-quality markers. METHODS:HumanEDTA blood was subjected to preanalytical variations while being processed to plasma: microclotting, prolonged processing times at different temperatures, hemolysis, and contamination with buffy layer. In a second experiment, EDTA plasma was incubated at different temperatures for up to 16 h. Samples were subjected to GC-MS and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry-based metabolite profiling (MxP™ Broad Profiling) complemented by targeted methods, i.e., sphingoids (as part of MxP™ Lipids), MxP™ Catecholamines, and MxP™ Eicosanoids. RESULTS: Short-term storage of blood, hemolysis, and short-term storage of noncooled plasma resulted in statistically significant increases of 4% to 19% and decreases of 8% to 12% of the metabolites. Microclotting, contamination of plasma with buffy layer, and short-term storage of cooled plasma were of less impact on the metabolome (0% to 11% of metabolites increased, 0% to 8% decreased). CONCLUSIONS: The response of the human plasma metabolome to preanalytical variation demands implementation of thorough quality assurance and QC measures to obtain reproducible and credible results from metabolomics studies. Metabolites identified as sensitive to preanalytics can be used to control for sample quality.
Authors: John M Wentworth; Naiara G Bediaga; Megan A S Penno; Esther Bandala-Sanchez; Komal N Kanojia; Konstantinos A Kouremenos; Jennifer J Couper; Leonard C Harrison Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Ying Wang; Brian D Carter; Susan M Gapstur; Marjorie L McCullough; Mia M Gaudet; Victoria L Stevens Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Michael R La Frano; Suzan L Carmichael; Chen Ma; Macy Hardley; Tong Shen; Ron Wong; Lorenzo Rosales; Kamil Borkowski; Theresa L Pedersen; Gary M Shaw; David K Stevenson; Oliver Fiehn; John W Newman Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Mary K Townsend; Ying Bao; Clary B Clish; Shelley S Tworoger; Elizabeth M Poole; Kimberly A Bertrand; Peter Kraft; Brian M Wolpin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jeramie D Watrous; Teemu J Niiranen; Kim A Lagerborg; Mir Henglin; Yong-Jiang Xu; Jian Rong; Sonia Sharma; Ramachandran S Vasan; Martin G Larson; Aaron Armando; Samia Mora; Oswald Quehenberger; Edward A Dennis; Susan Cheng; Mohit Jain Journal: Cell Chem Biol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 8.116
Authors: Brigitte K Paap; Sandra Roeske; Alexandra Durr; Ludger Schöls; Tetsuo Ashizawa; Sylvia Boesch; Lisa M Bunn; Martin B Delatycki; Paola Giunti; Stéphane Lehéricy; Caterina Mariotti; Jörg Melegh; Massimo Pandolfo; Chantal M E Tallaksen; Dagmar Timmann; Shoji Tsuji; Jörg Bela Schulz; Bart P van de Warrenburg; Thomas Klockgether Journal: Mov Disord Clin Pract Date: 2016-02-11
Authors: S Ramirez-Hincapie; V Giri; J Keller; H Kamp; V Haake; E Richling; B van Ravenzwaay Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 5.153