| Literature DB >> 34249959 |
Giovanni Monni1, Luigi Atzori2, Valentina Corda1, Francesca Dessolis1, Ambra Iuculano1, K Joseph Hurt3, Federica Murgia1,2.
Abstract
Pregnancy is a complicated and insidious state with various aspects to consider, including the well-being of the mother and child. Developing better non-invasive tests that cover a broader range of disorders with lower false-positive rates is a fundamental necessity in the prenatal medicine field, and, in this sense, the application of metabolomics could be extremely useful. Metabolomics measures and analyses the products of cellular biochemistry. As a biomarker discovery tool, the integrated holistic approach of metabolomics can yield new diagnostic or therapeutic approaches. In this review, we identify and summarize prenatal metabolomics studies and identify themes and controversies. We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar for all publications through January 2020 using combinations of the following keywords: nuclear magnetic resonance, mass spectrometry, metabolic profiling, prenatal diagnosis, pregnancy, chromosomal or aneuploidy, pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction, pre-term labor, and congenital defect. Metabolite detection with high throughput systems aided by advanced bioinformatics and network analysis allowed for the identification of new potential prenatal biomarkers and therapeutic targets. We took into consideration the scientific papers issued between the years 2000-2020, thus observing that the larger number of them were mainly published in the last 10 years. Initial small metabolomics studies in perinatology suggest that previously unidentified biochemical pathways and predictive biomarkers may be clinically useful. Although the scientific community is considering metabolomics with increasing attention for the study of prenatal medicine as well, more in-depth studies would be useful in order to advance toward the clinic world as the obtained results appear to be still preliminary. Employing metabolomics approaches to understand fetal and perinatal pathophysiology requires further research with larger sample sizes and rigorous testing of pilot studies using various omics and traditional hypothesis-driven experimental approaches.Entities:
Keywords: congenital anatomic defects; fetal growth restriction; metabolomics; normal pregnancy; pre-eclampsia; pre-term labor and delivery; prenatal diagnosis; prenatal medicine
Year: 2021 PMID: 34249959 PMCID: PMC8267865 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.645118
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1General approach for metabolomics studies.
The advantages and limitations of NMR spectroscopy and MS spectrometry as an analytical tool for metabolomics research.
| Analysis | Generally non-selective/untargeted | Both selective/targeted and non-selective/screening |
| Sensitivity | Lower | High using nanomolar detection limit |
| Reproducibility | Very high | Moderate; can depend on sample preparation or storage |
| Detection limits | Low micromolar to nanomolar (with specialized hardware) | Picomolar or lower (with specialized equipment) |
| Sample preparation | Minimal | Often requires specialized extraction, precipitation, or derivatization |
| Sample measurement | All metabolites detected in one measurement | Typically use different separation/preparation for different metabolite classes |
| Sample recovery | Non-destructive—specimen can be recovered | Destructive—but requires tiny amount of specimen |
| Amount of sample used | Usually 200–400 μL | 2–100 μL |
| Number of metabolites detected in biofluids | 40–200 depending on spectral resolution | >500 using various preparations |
| Molecular identification | Easy | Difficult |
| Robustness of the instruments | High | Low |
Figure 2Metabolomics workflow in prenatal medicine.
Key data points extracted from the cited studies.
| Normal pregnancy physiology | Jauniaux et al. ( | 2004 | 1st trimester | HPLC | 24 HC | CF | CF vs. plasma: ↓ GSH, DHA, ↑α-tocopherol, ↓γ-tocopherol, ≈ Ascorbic acid, Uric acid |
| Heazell et al. ( | 2008 | 1st trimester | GC-TOF-MS | 11 HC | P | With 1% O2: ↑ 2-deoxyribose, erythritol, hexadecanoic acid | |
| Jauniaux et al. ( | 2005 | 1st trimester | HPLC | 16 CF | CF | CF and AF vs. MS: ↑ Inositol, sorbitol, erythritol, ribitol, fructose; ↓ glucose and glycerol CF vs. AF: ↑ inositol, sorbitol, erythritol, ribitol, mannitol, galactose, galactosamine, and glucosamine IF vs. MS: ↑ inositol, sorbitol, mannitol | |
| Murgia et al. ( | 2019 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 13 HC | CV | Positive correlation with the CRL: Myo-inositol, glutamine, citrate. inositol, glycerol, dehydroascorbic acid, and ribitol | |
| Aneuploidy | Troisi et al. ( | 2017 | GC-MS | 220 HC | MS | CA vs HC:↓ Elaidic, mannose, stearic, myristic, ↑ benzoic, linolenic, citric and glyceric acid, 2-hydroxy butyrate, phenylalanine, proline, alanine and 3-methyl histidine | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2013 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 60 HC | MS | Trisomy 21 vs HC: ↑ 3-hydroxybutyrate, 3-hydroxyisovalerate, and 2-hydroxybutyrate | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2013 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 114 HC | MS | Trisomy 18 vs. HC: ↑ 2-hydroxybutyrate, glycerol | |
| Pinto et al. ( | 2015 | 1st/2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 74 HC | MP | CD vs. HC, 1st trimester: ↑ketone bodies; ↓ glucose, pyruvate, citrate, HDL, proline, methanol | |
| Diaz et al. ( | 2013 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 34 HC | U | Trisomy 21 vs. others CD: ↓ Glucose, N-methyl-2-pyridone-5-carboxamide | |
| Trivedi and Iles ( | 2015 | 1st/2nd trimester | ZIC-HILIC-IT-TOF RPLC-IT-TOF | 93 HC | U | Trisomy 21 vs. HC: ↑ Dihydrouracil, ↓ Progesterone | |
| Murgia et al. ( | 2019 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 13 HC | CV | CD | |
| Pre-eclampsia | Dunn et al. ( | 2009 | 1st trimester | UPLC–MS | 6 HC | Explanted | PE 1% O2 vs. HC: ↑ Progesterone, Glycerol, Valinol or choline, Diglyceride. Alteration in glutamate and glutamine, tryptophan metabolism and leukotriene or prostaglandin metabolism |
| Austdal et al. ( | 2014 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 10 HC preg. | U | Urine PE vs. HC pregnant: ↑ choline, ↓ glycine, p-cresol sulfate and hippurate | |
| Zhou et al. ( | 2017 | Delivery | GC-MS | 11 HC | Placental mitochondria | PE vs. HC: ↓ ATP, citraconate and caprylate; ↑ arachidonate, bihomo-γ-linoleate, and γ-linoleate, docosapentaenoate, myristate in PE | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2017 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 55 HC | MS | PE vs. HC: alteration in Branch chain amino acids | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2015 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 108 HC | MS | PE vs. HC: ↑ 2-hydroxybutyrate, 3-hydroxyisovalerate, citrate, ↓ arginine, acetone, glycerol | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2017 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 35 PE | MS | 1st trimester: putrescine, urea and carnitine, TNF-α, RPL41, ATP5E, TBP | |
| Koster et al. ( | 2015 | 1st trimester | UPLC-MS/MS | 500 HC | MS | Early PE: combination of MC, MAP, PAPPA, PLGF, taurine, stearoylcarnitine | |
| Kuc et al. ( | 2014 | 1st trimester | UPLC-MS/MS | 500 HC | MS | Early PE vs. HC: ↓ taurine and asparagine | |
| Fetal | Bernard et al. ( | 2017 | 2nd trimester | GC | 1,171 Preg | MS | Linoleic acid positively associated with birthweight, BMI, head circumference, neonatal abdominal adipose tissue volume |
| Visentin et al. ( | 2017 | 3rd trimester | GC-MS | 12 AGA | MP | SGA vs. IUGR: ↑ C6:0 (in maternal plasma) | |
| Clinton et al. ( | 2020 | 1st trimester | GC-MS | 30 HC | U | 1st trimester FGR | |
| Dessì et al. ( | 2014 | Post-natal | 1H-NMR | 17 AGA | U | IUGR vs. AGA: ↑ Myo-inositol, creatinine, creatine, citrate, betaine/TMAO glycine; ↓ urea, aromatic coumpounds, branched chain amicoacids | |
| Dessì et al. ( | 2011 | Post-natal | 1H-NMR | 30 HC | U | IUGR vs. HC: ↑ Myo-inositol, creatinine | |
| Favretto et al. ( | 2012 | Post-natal | LC-MS | 22 IUGR | FUVP | IUGR vs. AGA: ↑ Phenylalanine, tryptophan, and glutamate | |
| Sanz-Cortés et al. ( | 2013 | Post-natal | 1H-NMR | 23 Early IUGR | FUVP | Early and late IUGR vs. HC: ↑ Unsaturated lipids and VLDL levels; ↓ phenylalanine, tyrosine, choline | |
| Liu et al. ( | 2016 | Post-natal | LC-MS | 60 IUGR | Heel-stick blood | Newborns of different weight percentages: alteration in alanine, homocysteine, methionine, ornithine, serine, tyrosine, isovaleryl carnitine, and eicosenoyl carnitine | |
| Porter et al. ( | 2020 | 3rd trimester | LC-MS | 14 Low EFW | MP | Abnormal UmA vs. normal UmA: ↑ ornithine | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2020 | Post-natal | 1H-NMR | 30 HC | P | Combination of 3-hydroxybutyrate, glycine and PCaa C42:0 for FGR detection | |
| Sulek et al. ( | 2014 | 2nd trimester | GC-MS | 30 Mother of SGA | Hair | Combination of lactate, levulinate, 2-methyloctadecanate, tyrosine, and margarate | |
| Pre-term labor and delivery | Caboni et al. ( | 2014 | Term of gestation | GC-MS1H-NMR | 59 Preg | U | Alanine, glycine, acetone, 3-hydroxybutiyric acid, 2,3,4-trihydroxybutyric acid and succinic acid characterize the late phase of labor |
| Baraldi et al. ( | 2016 | 3rd trimester | UPLC-MS | 13 Pre-term | AF | PTD vs. TD: ↑ 3-methoxybenzenepropanoic acid, 4-hydroxy nonenal alkyne, muconic dialdehyde. ↓ phosphatidylcholine | |
| Graça et al. ( | 2010 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 27 Pre-term | AF | Alanine, allantoin, citrate, and myoinositol | |
| Menon et al. ( | 2014 | 3rd trimester | GC-MS | 25 Pre-term | AF | PTD vs. TD: Changes in Histidine metabolites (cis-urocanate, trans-urocanate, 1-methylimidazoleacetate) | |
| Romero et al. ( | 2010 | 2nd trimester | GC-MS | 52 Pre-term without IAI | AF | Pre-term without IAI: ↓ carbohydrates and amino acids | |
| Virgiliou et al. ( | 2017 | 2nd trimester | UHPLC–MS | 35 Pre-term | AF | Pre-term (amniotic fluid): ↓ pyruvic acid, inositol, glutamine; ↓ glutamate | |
| Lizewska et al. ( | 2018 | Post-natal | LC-MS | 57 Pre-term | MP | Threatened pre-term | |
| Tea et al. ( | 2012 | Post-natal | 1H-NMR | 35 VLBW | FUVP | Fetal umbilical vein plasma | |
| Congenital anatomic defects | Groenen et al. ( | 2004 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 14 Spina bifida | AF | Spina bifida |
| Bock ( | 1994 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 70 Preg | AF | PE: ↑ Choline, succinate, acetate | |
| Clifton et al. ( | 2006 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 3 Preg | AF | 3rd trimester vs. 2nd trimester: ↑ choline | |
| Pearce et al. ( | 1993 | 2nd trimester | 31P NMR | 16 Preg | AF | Disaturated phosphatidylcholines positively correlates with the gestational age and fetal maturation | |
| Graça et al. ( | 2007 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 16 HC Preg | AF | Methodological article | |
| Graça et al. ( | 2009 | 2nd trimester | 1H-NMR | 51 HC | AF | Fetal malformation vs HC: ↓ leucine, valine, ethanol, alanine, proline, glutamate, glucose; ↑ methionine, succinate, glutamine, citrate, glycine | |
| Bahado-Singh et al. ( | 2014 | 1st trimester | 1H-NMR | 27 CD | MS | CD vs. HC: ↓ C3-OH, C5-OH(C3-DC-M), C14:1, and SM C22:3, alteration in acetone, ethanol, acetate, and pyruvate levels | |
| Single gene disorders | Monni et al. ( | 2019 | 1st trimester | GC-MS | 27 HC | CV | Homozygous vs HC and heterozygous: ↑ Glutamic acid, glycerol-1-phosphate, malic acid, arachidonic acid, glucose, and ribose; ↓ docosatetranoic acid, palmitoleic acid |
HC, healthy controls; CF, coelomic fluid; AF, amniotic fluid; IF, intervillous fluid; MS, maternal serum; MP, maternal plasma; U, urine; CV, chorionic villi; FUVP, Fetal umbilical vein plasma; P, placenta; CD, chromosomal disorders; T21, trisomy 21; T18, trisomy 18; T13, trisomy 13; PE, pre-eclampsia; FM, fetal malformation; Preg, pregnancies; MAP, Mean arterial pressure; TNF-α, Tumor necrosis factor-alpha; RPL41, 60S ribosomal protein L41; ATP5E: ATP synthase subunit epsilon; TBP, TATA box binding protein - associated factor; EFW, estimated fetal weight; UmA, umbilical artery; UtA, uterine artery; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; AGA, adequate-for-gestational-age; SGA, small-for-gestational-age; MCFAs, Medium chain fatty acids; PTD, pre-term delivery; TD, term delivery; LCFAs, long-chain fatty acids; EFA, essential fatty acids. IAI, intra-amniotic infection/inflammation; DHA, docosahexaenoic acid; HDL, High density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; VLDL, very low-density lipoprotein.
Figure 3Metabolomics publications in prenatal medicine. The number of metabolomics publications in prenatal medicine is low but increased from 2006 to 2019 based on PubMed searches.
Figure 4(A) Summary of the altered metabolic pathways associated with prenatal disorders. (B) Associated and specific altered metabolic pathways in prenatal disorders.
Advantage, limitations, and the future of metabolomics in prenatal medicine.
| Evaluates several biomarkers in a single experiment | Possible over-interpretation of data |
| Rapid experimental turnaround and relatively low cost | High false discovery rates requiring expert analysis |
| Does not require a-priori hypotheses of specific metabolites | Proof of initial findings in cell line and animal models often lags initial reports |
| Can identify altered metabolic pathways from multiple metabolite analysis | Hypothesis generating approach, but cutoff values and normal ranges must be established for clinical studies |
| May permit earlier identification of fetal or pregnancy disorders | Collaboration is weak among clinicians, analytical chemists, and biotechnologists |
| Simultaneously analyze metabolome of several compartments (e.g., maternal, placental, fetal) | Simple, specific tests that do not use sophisticated equipment may need to be developed |