Alysha M De Livera1, Gavriel Olshansky2, Julie A Simpson3, Darren J Creek4. 1. Biostatistics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia. alyshad@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia. 3. Biostatistics Unit, Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3800, Australia. 4. Drug Delivery, Disposition and Dynamics, Monash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville, VIC, 3052, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In metabolomics studies, unwanted variation inevitably arises from various sources. Normalization, that is the removal of unwanted variation, is an essential step in the statistical analysis of metabolomics data. However, metabolomics normalization is often considered an imprecise science due to the diverse sources of variation and the availability of a number of alternative strategies that may be implemented. OBJECTIVES: We highlight the need for comparative evaluation of different normalization methods and present software strategies to help ease this task for both data-oriented and biological researchers. METHODS: We present NormalizeMets-a joint graphical user interface within the familiar Microsoft Excel and freely-available R software for comparative evaluation of different normalization methods. The NormalizeMets R package along with the vignette describing the workflow can be downloaded from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/NormalizeMets/ . The Excel Interface and the Excel user guide are available on https://metabolomicstats.github.io/ExNormalizeMets . RESULTS: NormalizeMets allows for comparative evaluation of normalization methods using criteria that depend on the given dataset and the ultimate research question. Hence it guides researchers to assess, select and implement a suitable normalization method using either the familiar Microsoft Excel and/or freely-available R software. In addition, the package can be used for visualisation of metabolomics data using interactive graphical displays and to obtain end statistical results for clustering, classification, biomarker identification adjusting for confounding variables, and correlation analysis. CONCLUSION: NormalizeMets is designed for comparative evaluation of normalization methods, and can also be used to obtain end statistical results. The use of freely-available R software offers an attractive proposition for programming-oriented researchers, and the Excel interface offers a familiar alternative to most biological researchers. The package handles the data locally in the user's own computer allowing for reproducible code to be stored locally.
INTRODUCTION: In metabolomics studies, unwanted variation inevitably arises from various sources. Normalization, that is the removal of unwanted variation, is an essential step in the statistical analysis of metabolomics data. However, metabolomics normalization is often considered an imprecise science due to the diverse sources of variation and the availability of a number of alternative strategies that may be implemented. OBJECTIVES: We highlight the need for comparative evaluation of different normalization methods and present software strategies to help ease this task for both data-oriented and biological researchers. METHODS: We present NormalizeMets-a joint graphical user interface within the familiar Microsoft Excel and freely-available R software for comparative evaluation of different normalization methods. The NormalizeMets R package along with the vignette describing the workflow can be downloaded from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/NormalizeMets/ . The Excel Interface and the Excel user guide are available on https://metabolomicstats.github.io/ExNormalizeMets . RESULTS: NormalizeMets allows for comparative evaluation of normalization methods using criteria that depend on the given dataset and the ultimate research question. Hence it guides researchers to assess, select and implement a suitable normalization method using either the familiar Microsoft Excel and/or freely-available R software. In addition, the package can be used for visualisation of metabolomics data using interactive graphical displays and to obtain end statistical results for clustering, classification, biomarker identification adjusting for confounding variables, and correlation analysis. CONCLUSION: NormalizeMets is designed for comparative evaluation of normalization methods, and can also be used to obtain end statistical results. The use of freely-available R software offers an attractive proposition for programming-oriented researchers, and the Excel interface offers a familiar alternative to most biological researchers. The package handles the data locally in the user's own computer allowing for reproducible code to be stored locally.
Authors: Weixun Wang; Haihong Zhou; Hua Lin; Sushmita Roy; Thomas A Shaler; Lander R Hill; Scott Norton; Praveen Kumar; Markus Anderle; Christopher H Becker Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2003-09-15 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Warwick B Dunn; David Broadhurst; Paul Begley; Eva Zelena; Sue Francis-McIntyre; Nadine Anderson; Marie Brown; Joshau D Knowles; Antony Halsall; John N Haselden; Andrew W Nicholls; Ian D Wilson; Douglas B Kell; Royston Goodacre Journal: Nat Protoc Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 13.491
Authors: Alysha M De Livera; Marko Sysi-Aho; Laurent Jacob; Johann A Gagnon-Bartsch; Sandra Castillo; Julie A Simpson; Terence P Speed Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Darren J Creek; Andris Jankevics; Karl E V Burgess; Rainer Breitling; Michael P Barrett Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2012-02-04 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Jianguo Xia; Rupasri Mandal; Igor V Sinelnikov; David Broadhurst; David S Wishart Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Derek Simonsen; Nicole Cady; Chunyun Zhang; Rachel L Shrode; Michael L McCormick; Douglas R Spitz; Michael S Chimenti; Kai Wang; Ashutosh Mangalam; Hans-Joachim Lehmler Journal: Toxicol Sci Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 4.109
Authors: Kelly G Stratton; Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson; Lee Ann McCue; Bryan Stanfill; Daniel Claborne; Iobani Godinez; Thomas Johansen; Allison M Thompson; Kristin E Burnum-Johnson; Katrina M Waters; Lisa M Bramer Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Álvaro Fernández-Ochoa; Rosa Quirantes-Piné; Isabel Borrás-Linares; María de la Luz Cádiz-Gurrea; Marta E Alarcón Riquelme; Carl Brunius; Antonio Segura-Carretero Journal: Metabolites Date: 2020-01-08
Authors: Bridget A Tripp; Simon T Dillon; Min Yuan; John M Asara; Sarinnapha M Vasunilashorn; Tamara G Fong; Eran D Metzger; Sharon K Inouye; Zhongcong Xie; Long H Ngo; Edward R Marcantonio; Towia A Libermann; Hasan H Otu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Kate L Bowerman; Saima Firdous Rehman; Annalicia Vaughan; Nancy Lachner; Kurtis F Budden; Richard Y Kim; David L A Wood; Shaan L Gellatly; Shakti D Shukla; Lisa G Wood; Ian A Yang; Peter A Wark; Philip Hugenholtz; Philip M Hansbro Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Aykhan Yusifov; Vikram E Chhatre; Eva K Koplin; Cortney E Wilson; Emily E Schmitt; Kathleen C Woulfe; Danielle R Bruns Journal: Physiol Rep Date: 2021-07
Authors: Jan Stanstrup; Corey D Broeckling; Rick Helmus; Nils Hoffmann; Ewy Mathé; Thomas Naake; Luca Nicolotti; Kristian Peters; Johannes Rainer; Reza M Salek; Tobias Schulze; Emma L Schymanski; Michael A Stravs; Etienne A Thévenot; Hendrik Treutler; Ralf J M Weber; Egon Willighagen; Michael Witting; Steffen Neumann Journal: Metabolites Date: 2019-09-23