John A Bowden1, Candice Z Ulmer2, Christina M Jones3, Jeremy P Koelmel4, Richard A Yost4. 1. Marine Biochemical Sciences Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Hollings Marine Laboratory, 331 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC, 29412, USA. john.bowden@nist.gov. 2. Marine Biochemical Sciences Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Hollings Marine Laboratory, 331 Fort Johnson Road, Charleston, SC, 29412, USA. 3. Organic Chemical Measurement Science Group, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899, USA. 4. Department of Chemistry, University of Florida, 214 Leigh Hall, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Efforts to harmonize lipidomic methodologies have been limited within the community. Here, we aimed to capitalize on the recent National Institute of Standards and Technology lipidomics interlaboratory comparison exercise by implementing a questionnaire that assessed current methodologies, quantitation strategies, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and quality control activities employed by the lipidomics community. OBJECTIVES: Lipidomics is a rapidly developing field with diverse applications. At present, there are no community-vetted methods to assess measurement comparability or data quality. Thus, a major impetus of this questionnaire was to profile current efforts, highlight areas of need, and establish future objectives in an effort to harmonize lipidomics workflows. METHODS: The 54-question survey inquired about laboratory demographics, lipidomic methodologies and SOPs, analytical platforms, quantitation, reference materials, quality control procedures, and opinions regarding challenges existing within the community. RESULTS: A total of 125 laboratories participated in the questionnaire. A broad overview of results highlighted a wide methodological diversity within current lipidomic workflows. The impact of this diversity on lipid measurement and quantitation is currently unknown and needs to be explored further. While some laboratories do incorporate SOPs and quality control activities, these concepts have not been fully embraced by the community. The top five perceived challenges within the lipidomics community were a lack of standardization amongst methods/protocols, lack of lipid standards, software/data handling and quantification, and over-reporting/false positives. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire provided an overview of current lipidomics methodologies and further promoted the need for community-accepted guidelines and protocols. The questionnaire also served as a platform to help determine and prioritize metrological issues to be investigated.
INTRODUCTION: Efforts to harmonize lipidomic methodologies have been limited within the community. Here, we aimed to capitalize on the recent National Institute of Standards and Technology lipidomics interlaboratory comparison exercise by implementing a questionnaire that assessed current methodologies, quantitation strategies, standard operating procedures (SOPs), and quality control activities employed by the lipidomics community. OBJECTIVES: Lipidomics is a rapidly developing field with diverse applications. At present, there are no community-vetted methods to assess measurement comparability or data quality. Thus, a major impetus of this questionnaire was to profile current efforts, highlight areas of need, and establish future objectives in an effort to harmonize lipidomics workflows. METHODS: The 54-question survey inquired about laboratory demographics, lipidomic methodologies and SOPs, analytical platforms, quantitation, reference materials, quality control procedures, and opinions regarding challenges existing within the community. RESULTS: A total of 125 laboratories participated in the questionnaire. A broad overview of results highlighted a wide methodological diversity within current lipidomic workflows. The impact of this diversity on lipid measurement and quantitation is currently unknown and needs to be explored further. While some laboratories do incorporate SOPs and quality control activities, these concepts have not been fully embraced by the community. The top five perceived challenges within the lipidomics community were a lack of standardization amongst methods/protocols, lack of lipid standards, software/data handling and quantification, and over-reporting/false positives. CONCLUSION: The questionnaire provided an overview of current lipidomics methodologies and further promoted the need for community-accepted guidelines and protocols. The questionnaire also served as a platform to help determine and prioritize metrological issues to be investigated.
Authors: Eoin Fahy; Shankar Subramaniam; H Alex Brown; Christopher K Glass; Alfred H Merrill; Robert C Murphy; Christian R H Raetz; David W Russell; Yousuke Seyama; Walter Shaw; Takao Shimizu; Friedrich Spener; Gerrit van Meer; Michael S VanNieuwenhze; Stephen H White; Joseph L Witztum; Edward A Dennis Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2005-02-16 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Lloyd W Sumner; Alexander Amberg; Dave Barrett; Michael H Beale; Richard Beger; Clare A Daykin; Teresa W-M Fan; Oliver Fiehn; Royston Goodacre; Julian L Griffin; Thomas Hankemeier; Nigel Hardy; James Harnly; Richard Higashi; Joachim Kopka; Andrew N Lane; John C Lindon; Philip Marriott; Andrew W Nicholls; Michael D Reily; John J Thaden; Mark R Viant Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Richard D Beger; Warwick Dunn; Michael A Schmidt; Steven S Gross; Jennifer A Kirwan; Marta Cascante; Lorraine Brennan; David S Wishart; Matej Oresic; Thomas Hankemeier; David I Broadhurst; Andrew N Lane; Karsten Suhre; Gabi Kastenmüller; Susan J Sumner; Ines Thiele; Oliver Fiehn; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: John A Bowden; Alan Heckert; Candice Z Ulmer; Christina M Jones; Jeremy P Koelmel; Laila Abdullah; Linda Ahonen; Yazen Alnouti; Aaron M Armando; John M Asara; Takeshi Bamba; John R Barr; Jonas Bergquist; Christoph H Borchers; Joost Brandsma; Susanne B Breitkopf; Tomas Cajka; Amaury Cazenave-Gassiot; Antonio Checa; Michelle A Cinel; Romain A Colas; Serge Cremers; Edward A Dennis; James E Evans; Alexander Fauland; Oliver Fiehn; Michael S Gardner; Timothy J Garrett; Katherine H Gotlinger; Jun Han; Yingying Huang; Aveline Huipeng Neo; Tuulia Hyötyläinen; Yoshihiro Izumi; Hongfeng Jiang; Houli Jiang; Jiang Jiang; Maureen Kachman; Reiko Kiyonami; Kristaps Klavins; Christian Klose; Harald C Köfeler; Johan Kolmert; Therese Koal; Grielof Koster; Zsuzsanna Kuklenyik; Irwin J Kurland; Michael Leadley; Karen Lin; Krishna Rao Maddipati; Danielle McDougall; Peter J Meikle; Natalie A Mellett; Cian Monnin; M Arthur Moseley; Renu Nandakumar; Matej Oresic; Rainey Patterson; David Peake; Jason S Pierce; Martin Post; Anthony D Postle; Rebecca Pugh; Yunping Qiu; Oswald Quehenberger; Parsram Ramrup; Jon Rees; Barbara Rembiesa; Denis Reynaud; Mary R Roth; Susanne Sales; Kai Schuhmann; Michal Laniado Schwartzman; Charles N Serhan; Andrej Shevchenko; Stephen E Somerville; Lisa St John-Williams; Michal A Surma; Hiroaki Takeda; Rhishikesh Thakare; J Will Thompson; Federico Torta; Alexander Triebl; Martin Trötzmüller; S J Kumari Ubhayasekera; Dajana Vuckovic; Jacquelyn M Weir; Ruth Welti; Markus R Wenk; Craig E Wheelock; Libin Yao; Min Yuan; Xueqing Heather Zhao; Senlin Zhou Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2017-10-06 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Jennifer E Kyle; Lucila Aimo; Alan J Bridge; Geremy Clair; Maria Fedorova; J Bernd Helms; Martijn R Molenaar; Zhixu Ni; Matej Orešič; Denise Slenter; Egon Willighagen; Bobbie-Jo M Webb-Robertson Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Katrice A Lippa; Juan J Aristizabal-Henao; Richard D Beger; John A Bowden; Corey Broeckling; Chris Beecher; W Clay Davis; Warwick B Dunn; Roberto Flores; Royston Goodacre; Gonçalo J Gouveia; Amy C Harms; Thomas Hartung; Christina M Jones; Matthew R Lewis; Ioanna Ntai; Andrew J Percy; Dan Raftery; Tracey B Schock; Jinchun Sun; Georgios Theodoridis; Fariba Tayyari; Federico Torta; Candice Z Ulmer; Ian Wilson; Baljit K Ubhi Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 4.747
Authors: Kabir Ahluwalia; Brandon Ebright; Kingsley Chow; Priyal Dave; Andrew Mead; Roy Poblete; Stan G Louie; Isaac Asante Journal: Metabolites Date: 2022-04-07
Authors: Candice Z Ulmer; Jeremy P Koelmel; Christina M Jones; Timothy J Garrett; Juan J Aristizabal-Henao; Hubert W Vesper; John A Bowden Journal: Lipids Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 1.646