| Literature DB >> 26366133 |
Aurélie Roux1, Etienne A Thévenot2, François Seguin3, Marie-Françoise Olivier4, Christophe Junot1.
Abstract
There is a lack of comprehensive studies documenting the impact of sample collection conditions on metabolic composition of human urine. To address this issue, two experiments were performed at a 3-month interval, in which midstream urine samples from healthy individuals were collected, pooled, divided into several aliquots and kept under specific conditions (room temperature, 4 °C, with or without preservative) up to 72 h before storage at -80 °C. Samples were analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry and bacterial contamination was monitored by turbidimetry. Multivariate analyses showed that urinary metabolic fingerprints were affected by the presence of preservatives and also by storage at room temperature from 24 to 72 h, whereas no change was observed for urine samples stored at 4 °C over a 72-h period. Investigations were then focused on 280 metabolites previously identified in urine: 19 of them were impacted by the kind of sample collection protocol in both experiments, including 12 metabolites affected by bacterial contamination and 7 exhibiting poor chemical stability. Finally, our results emphasize that the use of preservative prevents bacterial overgrowth, but does not avoid metabolite instability in solution, whereas storage at 4 °C inhibits bacterial overgrowth at least over a 72-h period and slows the chemical degradation process. Consequently, and for further LC/MS analyses, human urine samples should be kept at 4 °C if their collection is performed over 24 h.Entities:
Keywords: High resolution mass spectrometry; Human urine; Metabolomics; Stability
Year: 2014 PMID: 26366133 PMCID: PMC4559108 DOI: 10.1007/s11306-014-0764-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolomics ISSN: 1573-3882 Impact factor: 4.290
Experimental design. Collection conditions and time points for the two experiments are indicated as colored cells
Fig. 1Bacterial growth according to storage conditions. The means and standard deviations of the triplicate optical density measurements are plotted as solid (Exp. 1) or dashed (Exp. 2) lines
Fig. 2Impact of storage conditions on metabolite concentrations analyzed by multivariate modeling. a and c Principal component scores of the positive peak tables from Exp. 2 (a) and Exp. 1 (c) in the first two dimensions. The individual (in parentheses) and cumulative (ExpX) proportions of explained variance are indicated. The 95 % ellipses corresponding to a multinormal distribution for each sample condition are superimposed in color. b and d Scores resulting from partial least-squares (PLS) modeling of the storage duration in Exp. 2 (b) and Exp. 1 (d). The cumulative proportion of explained variance of the response (ExpY) and the estimation of the model predictive performance by cross-validation (Q ) are shown. The statistical significance of Q diagnostics was confirmed for all PLS models by permutation testing (p < 0.05; see supplementary material 9)
Fig. 3Number of metabolites impacted by storage duration. a Total number of identified metabolites in Exp. 1 and Exp. 2 which were used for statistical analysis. b Number of metabolites significantly correlated with storage duration at 4 °C or at room temperature with (Pres) or without (RT) a preservative
Effect of storage conditions on metabolite concentration variation over time.
Metabolites whose concentrations were impacted by either bacterial metabolism or chemical instability were sorted by increasing corrected p-values associated with correlation with room temperature, 4 °C and preservative storage duration. Metabolites were identified according to the metabolomics standard initiative (MSI) criteria (Sumner et al 2007)
cor The value of the spearman correlation coefficient when the FDR of the test is <0.01 (ns otherwise) is colored in green/red according to its sign; time: first time point at which triplicate concentrations are all above (in case of positive correlation, below otherwise) the T0 triplicate concentrations. ID: identified (i.e., level 1); Putative A: putatively annotated compound (i.e., level 2); Putative C: putatively characterized compound (i.e., level 3)
a m/z matching structure
b MSn matching structure
c retention times (C18 and PFPP chromatography columns) matching standards (Roux, 2012)
d MSn matching standard
* Three metabolites, although not meeting all statistical criteria at the 0.01 threshold, were included in the table because of meaningful variation trends, and are discussed in the results section
†The decrease of the N-acetylcytidine concentrations in Exp 1 is so abrupt (fall to 0 as soon as T12; see the graphics for N-acetylcytidine in the supplementary information) that the correlation test fails to reflect this variation
Fig. 4Metabolites whose concentrations are affected by bacterial overgrowth or chemical instability. Metabolite intensities were measured by LC–MS (n = 3) or NMR (acetic acid; n = 1). For each storage condition, intensities were normalized relative to the (mean of) T0 (triplicate) value(s). The (means of the) relative intensities are plotted as solid lines for Exp. 1 and dashed lines for Exp. 2. In case of triplicates, standard deviations are indicated as bars. For urobilinogen, the two curves for each condition correspond to the positive and negative ionization modes