| Literature DB >> 29649241 |
Lieven Van Meulebroek1, Jella Wauters1, Beata Pomian1, Julie Vanden Bussche1, Philippe Delahaut2, Eric Fichant2, Lynn Vanhaecke1.
Abstract
In the European Union, the use of thyreostats for animal fattening purposes has been banned and monitoring plans have been established to detect potential abuse. However, this is not always straightforward as thyreostats such as thiouracil may also have a semi-endogenous origin. Therefore, this study aimed at defining urinary metabolites, which may aid in defining the origin of detected thiouracil. Hereto, a parallel-like randomized in vivo study was conducted in which calves (n = 8) and cows (n = 8) were subjected to either a control treatment, rapeseed-enriched diet to induce semi-endogenous formation, or thiouracil treatment. Urine samples (n = 330) were assessed through metabolic fingerprinting, employing liquid-chromatography and Q-ExactiveTM Orbitrap mass spectrometry. Urinary fingerprints comprised up to 40,000 features whereby multivariate discriminant analysis was able to point out significant metabolome differences between treatments (Q2(Y) ≥ 0.873). Using the validated models, a total of twelve metabolites (including thiouracil) were assigned marker potential. Combining these markers into age-dependent biomarker panels rendered a tool by which sample classification could be improved in comparison with thiouracil-based thresholds, and this during on-going thiouracil treatment (specificities ≥ 95.2% and sensitivities ≥ 85.7%), post-treatment (sensitivities ≥ 80% for ≥ 24 h after last administration), and simulated low-dose thiouracil treatment (exogenous thiouracil below 30 ng μL-1). Moreover, the metabolic relevance of revealed markers was supported by the suggested identities, for which a structural link with thiouracil could be determined in most cases. The proposed biomarker panels may contribute to a more justified decision-making in monitoring thiouracil abuse.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29649241 PMCID: PMC5896977 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195351
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic representation of the in vivo trial.
The small ticks in the scheme represent urine sampling moments, being relatively expressed towards treatment starting points (i.e. days (D), morning (am), afternoon (pm)).
Fig 2PCA-X score plots.
Score plots for cow and calf urine samples that were derived from the TU treated group (n = 65) (red) and untreated control group (n = 39) (yellow), thereby separating between negative and positive ions. Internal quality control samples are colored grey, outliers are highlighted with an orange glow.
Specifications of constructed OPLS-DA models and output of model validation, considering control and TU treated animals.
| model specifications | number of model components (to + tp) | model | cross-validated | permutation testing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cows– | 1 + 5 | R2(X) = 0.502 | 3.69 e-33 | Good |
| cows– | 1 + 8 | R2(X) = 0.544 | 1.90 e-32 | Good |
| calves– | 1 + 5 | R2(X) = 0.513 | 7.87 e-33 | Good |
| calves– | 1 + 7 | R2(X) = 0.646 | 1.94 e-34 | Good |
a with to the orthogonal and tp the predictive component.
b with R2(X) the variation in X that is explained by the model, R2(Y) the variation in Y that is explained by the model, and Q2(Y) the predictive ability of the model. A Q2(Y) > 0.5 indicated good model quality.
c a cross-validated ANOVA p-value < 0.05 indicated good model quality.
d good permutation testing was achieved if Q2(Y) and R2(Y) values of the models based on the permutated data were significantly lower than those based on the real data set.
Fig 3OPLS-DA score plots and associated S-plots.
Generated plots visualize the separation between the TU treated group (red) and control group (yellow). With respect to the S-plots, green-colored areas (|p| ≥ 0.05 and corr(p) ≥ +0.02 or ≤ -0.035 or -0.02) indicate ions that were assigned discriminating potential.
Biological markers that were considered descriptive towards TU treatment.
| Compound ID | Chemical formula | Isotope profile | PubChem ID | Fragmentation spectrum (structure matching fragments) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2358 (+) | C5H6N2OS | 5.2% 13C | ID number 79823 | 70.03, 71.03, 74.01, 95.02 |
| 2862 (+) | C4H8N2O2S | 4.1% 13C | ID number 18341782 | 55.02, 59.99, 72.04, 73.03, 77.02, 89.02, 90.06, 114.00, 131.03, 132.0 |
| 2385 (+) | C4H6N2OS | 4.0% 13C 3.0% 34S | ID number 15299396 | 55.02, 57.02, 69.02, 71.04, 84.04 |
| 5119 (+) | C4H8N2O2S | 4.3% 13C | ID number 18341782 | 55.02, 59.99, 72.04, 73.03, 77.02, 89.02, 90.06, 114.00, 131.03, 132.0 |
| 9179 (+) | C6H8N2O2S | 8.8% 13C | ID number 21484601 | 55.04, 67.04, 69.06, 71.05, 85.05, 95.05,113.05 |
| 160 (-) | C2H4ON5 | 4.1% 13C | ID number 3396861 | 68.99, 69.03, 70.00, 70.02, 96.01 |
| 1873 (-) | C8H12O3N2S2 | 7.6% 13C | ID number 17446869 | 57.03, 58.98, 121.03, 129.01, 135.03 |
| 6001 (-) | C7H16O6N2S2 | 6.7% 13C | ID number 54274647 (ChemSpider) | 108.04, 139.01, 188.00 |
| 6130 (-) | 7.4% 13C | ID number 18219810 | 72.01, 100.00, 117.01, 118.02, 139.01, 141.01, 156.03, 172.05, 173.03 |
Identification was performed upon the level of putatively annotated compound classes [39]. The data include the identities as they were determined by an in silico based approach.
a Tentative identities as determined by in silico-based interpretation of fragmentation data. Starting from these matching fragments, other chemical configurations were sometimes considered more likely in light of the TU context and presented in Fig 4. It was effectively verified that these structures were not incorporated in online databases and therefore could not be suggested by the in silico-based approach.
Fig 4Chemical structures and metabolic linkage with TU for revealed biomarkers.
The presented structures are those that were considered most likely according to in silico based and own interpretation of the fragmentation spectra. For the markers, depicted in figure panel A, a direct link with thiouracil could be determined, which was not case for the markers of panel B.
Fig 5Sample classification plots with the model Y-value or TU concentration as classifying variable.
Associated threshold values are indicated by the horizontal lines. Hereby, a correct assignment of TU origin (having or not having an exogenous component) is intended.
Fig 6Boxplots of TU concentration profiles.
These data are presented for the calves and adult cows during the washout period. Data were obtained from 5 animals. The red dashed line indicates the first sampling moment after last TU administration for which the measured TU concentration was no longer statistically different from the control group. Last TU administration took place at D6 am.
Fig 7TU excretion profiles for calves.
Comparison of TU concentration levels and biomarker profiles in their capacity to indicate past TU treatment (last administration took place at D6am). For each classification strategy, the associated threshold values are presented.
Fig 8TU excretion profiles for cows.
Comparison of TU concentration levels and biomarker profiles in their capacity to indicate past TU treatment (last administration took place at D6am). For each classification strategy, the associated threshold values are presented.