Anne M Evans1, Claire O'Donovan2, Mary Playdon3, Chris Beecher4, Richard D Beger5, John A Bowden6, David Broadhurst7, Clary B Clish8, Surendra Dasari9, Warwick B Dunn10, Julian L Griffin11,12, Thomas Hartung13, Ping- Ching Hsu14, Tao Huan15, Judith Jans16, Christina M Jones17, Maureen Kachman18, Andre Kleensang13, Matthew R Lewis19, María Eugenia Monge20, Jonathan D Mosley21, Eric Taylor22, Fariba Tayyari23, Georgios Theodoridis24, Federico Torta25, Baljit K Ubhi26, Dajana Vuckovic27. 1. Metabolon, Morrisville, NC, USA. aevans@metabolon.com. 2. European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL), The European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridgeshire, UK. 3. University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 4. IROA Technologies, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 5. National Center for Toxicological Research, Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, USA. 6. College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 7. Centre for Integrative Metabolomics & Computational Biology, School of Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia. 8. Broad Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA. 9. Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 10. School of Biosciences, Phenome Centre Birmingham and Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. 11. Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 12. Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK. 13. Center for Alternatives To Animal Testing (CAAT), Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 14. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 15. Department of Chemistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 16. University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. 17. Material Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, USA. 18. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 19. National Phenome Centre, Imperial College London, London, UK. 20. Centro de Investigaciones en Bionanociencias (CIBION), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas Y Técnicas (CONICET), C1425FQD, Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. 21. Center for Environmental Measurement and Modeling, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. 22. University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 23. Department of Internal Medicine, Metabolomics Core, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. 24. Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece. 25. Singapore Lipidomics Incubator, Department of Biochemistry, Life Sciences Institute and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore. 26. Sciex, Redwood, USA. 27. Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The metabolomics quality assurance and quality control consortium (mQACC) evolved from the recognized need for a community-wide consensus on improving and systematizing quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices for untargeted metabolomics. OBJECTIVES: In this work, we sought to identify and share the common and divergent QA and QC practices amongst mQACC members and collaborators who use liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in untargeted metabolomics. METHODS: All authors voluntarily participated in this collaborative research project by providing the details of and insights into the QA and QC practices used in their laboratories. This sharing was enabled via a six-page questionnaire composed of over 120 questions and comment fields which was developed as part of this work and has proved the basis for ongoing mQACC outreach. RESULTS: For QA, many laboratories reported documenting maintenance, calibration and tuning (82%); having established data storage and archival processes (71%); depositing data in public repositories (55%); having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place for all laboratory processes (68%) and training staff on laboratory processes (55%). For QC, universal practices included using system suitability procedures (100%) and using a robust system of identification (Metabolomics Standards Initiative level 1 identification standards) for at least some of the detected compounds. Most laboratories used QC samples (>86%); used internal standards (91%); used a designated analytical acquisition template with randomized experimental samples (91%); and manually reviewed peak integration following data acquisition (86%). A minority of laboratories included technical replicates of experimental samples in their workflows (36%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 23 contributors were researchers with diverse and international backgrounds from academia, industry and government, they are not necessarily representative of the worldwide pool of practitioners due to the recruitment method for participants and its voluntary nature. However, both questionnaire and the findings presented here have already informed and led other data gathering efforts by mQACC at conferences and other outreach activities and will continue to evolve in order to guide discussions for recommendations of best practices within the community and to establish internationally agreed upon reporting standards. We very much welcome further feedback from readers of this article.
INTRODUCTION: The metabolomics quality assurance and quality control consortium (mQACC) evolved from the recognized need for a community-wide consensus on improving and systematizing quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices for untargeted metabolomics. OBJECTIVES: In this work, we sought to identify and share the common and divergent QA and QC practices amongst mQACC members and collaborators who use liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in untargeted metabolomics. METHODS: All authors voluntarily participated in this collaborative research project by providing the details of and insights into the QA and QC practices used in their laboratories. This sharing was enabled via a six-page questionnaire composed of over 120 questions and comment fields which was developed as part of this work and has proved the basis for ongoing mQACC outreach. RESULTS: For QA, many laboratories reported documenting maintenance, calibration and tuning (82%); having established data storage and archival processes (71%); depositing data in public repositories (55%); having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place for all laboratory processes (68%) and training staff on laboratory processes (55%). For QC, universal practices included using system suitability procedures (100%) and using a robust system of identification (Metabolomics Standards Initiative level 1 identification standards) for at least some of the detected compounds. Most laboratories used QC samples (>86%); used internal standards (91%); used a designated analytical acquisition template with randomized experimental samples (91%); and manually reviewed peak integration following data acquisition (86%). A minority of laboratories included technical replicates of experimental samples in their workflows (36%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the 23 contributors were researchers with diverse and international backgrounds from academia, industry and government, they are not necessarily representative of the worldwide pool of practitioners due to the recruitment method for participants and its voluntary nature. However, both questionnaire and the findings presented here have already informed and led other data gathering efforts by mQACC at conferences and other outreach activities and will continue to evolve in order to guide discussions for recommendations of best practices within the community and to establish internationally agreed upon reporting standards. We very much welcome further feedback from readers of this article.
Entities:
Keywords:
LC-MS; Metabolomics quality assurance and quality control consortium (mQACC); Quality assurance; Quality control; Untargeted metabolomics
Authors: Age K Smilde; Mariët J van der Werf; Sabina Bijlsma; Bianca J C van der Werff-van der Vat; Renger H Jellema Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2005-10-15 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: Shogo Sato; Astrid Linde Basse; Milena Schönke; Siwei Chen; Muntaha Samad; Ali Altıntaş; Rhianna C Laker; Emilie Dalbram; Romain Barrès; Pierre Baldi; Jonas T Treebak; Juleen R Zierath; Paolo Sassone-Corsi Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: O D Rangel-Huerta; A Gomez-Fernández; M J de la Torre-Aguilar; A Gil; J L Perez-Navero; K Flores-Rojas; P Martín-Borreguero; M Gil-Campos Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Yamil Simón-Manso; Mark S Lowenthal; Lisa E Kilpatrick; Maureen L Sampson; Kelly H Telu; Paul A Rudnick; W Gary Mallard; Daniel W Bearden; Tracey B Schock; Dmitrii V Tchekhovskoi; Niksa Blonder; Xinjian Yan; Yuxue Liang; Yufang Zheng; William E Wallace; Pedatsur Neta; Karen W Phinney; Alan T Remaley; Stephen E Stein Journal: Anal Chem Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 6.986
Authors: David Broadhurst; Royston Goodacre; Stacey N Reinke; Julia Kuligowski; Ian D Wilson; Matthew R Lewis; Warwick B Dunn Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 4.290
Authors: Arie R Gafson; Constantinos Savva; Tom Thorne; Mark David; Maria Gomez-Romero; Matthew R Lewis; Richard Nicholas; Amanda Heslegrave; Henrik Zetterberg; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm Date: 2019-04-22
Authors: Mounir Bouhifd; Richard Beger; Thomas Flynn; Lining Guo; Georgina Harris; Helena Hogberg; Rima Kaddurah-Daouk; Hennicke Kamp; Andre Kleensang; Alexandra Maertens; Shelly Odwin-DaCosta; David Pamies; Donald Robertson; Lena Smirnova; Jinchun Sun; Liang Zhao; Thomas Hartung Journal: ALTEX Date: 2015 Impact factor: 6.043
Authors: Tamás Plaszkó; Zsolt Szűcs; Zoltán Cziáky; Lajos Ács-Szabó; Hajnalka Csoma; László Géczi; Gábor Vasas; Sándor Gonda Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 6.627
Authors: Elke Anklam; Martin Iain Bahl; Robert Ball; Richard D Beger; Jonathan Cohen; Suzanne Fitzpatrick; Philippe Girard; Blanka Halamoda-Kenzaoui; Denise Hinton; Akihiko Hirose; Arnd Hoeveler; Masamitsu Honma; Marta Hugas; Seichi Ishida; George En Kass; Hajime Kojima; Ira Krefting; Serguei Liachenko; Yan Liu; Shane Masters; Uwe Marx; Timothy McCarthy; Tim Mercer; Anil Patri; Carmen Pelaez; Munir Pirmohamed; Stefan Platz; Alexandre Js Ribeiro; Joseph V Rodricks; Ivan Rusyn; Reza M Salek; Reinhilde Schoonjans; Primal Silva; Clive N Svendsen; Susan Sumner; Kyung Sung; Danilo Tagle; Li Tong; Weida Tong; Janny van den Eijnden-van-Raaij; Neil Vary; Tao Wang; John Waterton; May Wang; Hairuo Wen; David Wishart; Yinyin Yuan; William Slikker Journal: Exp Biol Med (Maywood) Date: 2021-11-16
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: David A Hughes; Kurt Taylor; Nancy McBride; Matthew A Lee; Dan Mason; Deborah A Lawlor; Nicholas J Timpson; Laura J Corbin Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 6.931
Authors: Jennifer A Kirwan; Helen Gika; Richard D Beger; Dan Bearden; Warwick B Dunn; Royston Goodacre; Georgios Theodoridis; Michael Witting; Li-Rong Yu; Ian D Wilson Journal: Metabolomics Date: 2022-08-27 Impact factor: 4.747