| Literature DB >> 30372459 |
Martin J Rusilowicz1,2, Michael Dickinson3, Adrian J Charlton3, Simon O'Keefe1,2, Julie Wilson4,5.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Modern analytical techniques such as LC-MS, GC-MS and NMR are increasingly being used to study the underlying dynamics of biological systems by tracking changes in metabolite levels over time. Such techniques are capable of providing information on large numbers of metabolites simultaneously, a feature that is exploited in non-targeted studies. However, since the dynamics of specific metabolites are unlikely to be known a priori this presents an initial subjective challenge as to where the focus of the investigation should be. Whilst a number of feed-forward software tools are available for manipulation of metabolomic data, no tool centralizes on clustering and focus is typically directed by a workflow that is chosen in advance.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30372459 PMCID: PMC6205582 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0205968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flow chart showing the various analysis stages in MetaboClust and how they can be connected.
It is possible to re-run the analysis from various stages, but, for simplicity, the complete set of reverse arrows has not been shown.
Fig 2MetaboClust preview window showing background correction of a particular peak acquired in negative ionization mode.
Compared to the QC corrected data (S3 Fig), variations in intensity (Y-axis), between batches and with acquisition order (X-axis) have been reduced.
Fig 3Screen-shot showing thumbnail views of the 25 clusters obtained for the Medicago dataset after filtering.
Input vectors are colored by experimental group). The-X axis corresponds to the input vectors, organised as drought group, days 2–13 (red); Fusarium group, days 1–13 (green); Dual-stress group, days 2–13 (yellow). The Y-axis corresponds to the auto scaled peak intensity.
Fig 4Close-up of thumbnail views of clusters 24 and 25.
Taken from the 25 clusters obtained for the Medicago dataset in MetaboClust’s cluster explorer (Fig 3). Axes and colors are the same as those presented in Fig 3.
Fig 5Screen-shot the time profiles for cluster and pathway overlaid.
Here cluster 18 and the tRNA charging pathway have been chosen so that all profiles in cluster 18 are shown with those in bold having tentative annotations that could be associated with the tRNA charging pathway.
Results of pathway analysis on the time profiles in Case Study 2.
The number of peaks potentially be associated with each of the top five pathways in cluster 2 is shown. Compounds are listed as "potential" as they have been matched against putative annotations only and further experimental analysis is required to confirm their presence. As multiple peaks could represent the same compound, the number of compounds in the pathway with annotations in cluster 2 is also given.
| Pathway | Number of peaks | Number of potential compounds |
|---|---|---|
| brassinosteroid biosynthesis I | 23 | 7 (6-deoxotyphasterol, 6-deoxoteasterone, 6-oxocampestanol, castasterone, 3-dehydroteasterone, teasterone, typhasterol) |
| simple coumarins biosynthesis | 22 | 6 (ferulate, herniarin, 4-coumarate, umbelliferone, shikimate, S-adenosyl-L-methionine) |
| plant sterol biosynthesis II | 20 | 8 (4α-carboxy,4β,14α-dimethyl-9β,19-cyclo-5α-cholest-24-en-3β-ol, 4α-carboxy-5α-cholesta-7,24-dien-3β-ol, 4α-formyl-5α-cholesta-7,24-dien-3β-ol, 4α-hydroxymethyl-5α-cholesta-7,24-dien-3β-ol, 5α-cholesta-7,24-dien-3β-ol, desmosterol, 7-dehydrodesmosterol, 5α-cholesta-7,24-dien-3-one) |
| phenylpropanoid biosynthesis | 20 | 8 (5-hydroxy-coniferaldehyde, coumaraldhyde, 4-coumarate, L-quinate, shikimate, sinapaldehyde, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, trans-5-O-(4-coumaroyl)-D-quinate) |
| suberin biosynthesis | 20 | 7 (18-oxo-oleate, ferulate, trans-cinnamate, 4-coumarate, S-adenosyl-L-methionine, 22-hydroxydocosanoate, docosanedioate) |
Fig 6Time profiles for peaks potentially representing compounds of the brassinosteroid biosynthesis pathway.
Profiles for each group were considered separately. The upper panel shows those time-profiles that group together in cluster 2 in bold (mainly from the T group) and the lower panel shows those that group together in cluster 3 in bold (mainly the M group with a couple from the susceptible group).