| Literature DB >> 34164733 |
Nicole H Tobin1, Aisling Murphy2, Fan Li1, Sean S Brummel3, Taha E Taha4, Friday Saidi5, Maxie Owor6, Avy Violari7, Dhayendre Moodley8,9, Benjamin Chi10, Kelli D Goodman11, Brian Koos2, Grace M Aldrovandi12.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Untargeted metabolomics holds significant promise for biomarker detection and development. In resource-limited settings, a dried blood spot (DBS)-based platform would offer significant advantages over plasma-based approaches that require a cold supply chain.Entities:
Keywords: Comparison; Dried blood spots; Metabolomics; Plasma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34164733 PMCID: PMC8340475 DOI: 10.1007/s11306-021-01813-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Metabolomics ISSN: 1573-3882 Impact factor: 4.747
Demographics of study participants.
| Case untreated | Case ZDV | Case PI-ART | Case other | Control untreated | Control ZDV | Control PI-ART | Control other | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 13 | 16 | 1 | 11 | 10 | 15 | 2 | ||
| 0.161 | |||||||||
| India | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Malawi | 3 (27.3) | 8 (61.5) | 4 (25.0) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (36.4) | 7 (70.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (50.0) | |
| South Africa | 6 (54.5) | 4 (30.8) | 8 (50.0) | 1 (100.0) | 6 (54.5) | 2 (20.0) | 10 (66.7) | 1 (50.0) | |
| Uganda | 2 (18.2) | 1 (7.7) | 1 (6.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (10.0) | 3 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Zambia | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.2) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | |
| 29.62 (2.78) | 30.19 (2.95) | 31.51 (2.21) | 32.00 (NA) | 31.80 (1.84) | 30.40 (2.53) | 30.56 (1.86) | 28.07 (7.18) | 0.213 | |
| 32.13 (3.15) | 32.96 (2.71) | 33.76 (1.58) | 35.43 (NA) | 41.16 (4.36) | 39.94 (2.66) | 39.90 (2.13) | 39.78 (2.93) | <0.001 | |
| 4 (36.4) | 4 (30.8) | 8 (50.0) | 1 (100.0) | 3 (27.3) | 6 (60.0) | 10 (66.7) | 1 (50.0) | 0.248 |
Figure 1Detection of compounds from plasma and dried blood spots. (a) Venn diagram showing the number of compounds detected by both assays, or a single assay. (b) Breakdown of compounds detected by both assays or either assay alone into specific classes. Circle size is proportional to the absolute number of compounds detected and color shading shows enrichment or depletion of the specific class in the DBS and Plasma alone columns relative to the proportion detected by both assays. Black borders indicate significant differences by Chi-square test (adjusted p < 0.05).
Figure 2Consistency between log-transformed DBS and plasma metabolite profiles. (a) PCA plot of log-transformed metabolite profiles. Ellipses show 95% confidence regions for each sample type. Numbers in brackets denote the percentage of total variation explained by each principal component. (b) Distribution of interclass correlation (red) and Spearman correlation (blue) coefficients between paired plasma and DBS samples. Dotted lines denote means.
Figure 3Consistency between log-transformed and standardized DBS and plasma metabolite profiles. (a) PCA plot of log-transformed and standardized metabolite profiles. Ellipses show 95% confidence regions for each sample type. Numbers in brackets denote the percentage of total variation explained by each principal component. (b) Distribution of interclass correlation (red) and Spearman correlation (blue) coefficients between paired plasma and DBS samples. Dotted lines denote means. (c) Boxplot of Euclidean distances between plasma and DBS samples across different women (‘Between’) or within the same woman (‘Within’).
Figure 4Number of compounds with Spearman (red) or intraclass (blue) correlation coefficients above the specified threshold.
Figure 5Features that are consistently selected in random forests models from both plasma and DBS metabolite profiles. The specific drug regimen is noted at the bottom. Each column represents an independent model within the indicated sample matrix and drug regimen. Only features selected in at least 2 models are shown, and shaded cells denote selected features.