A Metabolomics Workflow for Analyzing Complex Biological Samples Using a Combined Method of Untargeted and Target-List Based Approaches

Abstract

In the highly dynamic field of metabolomics, we have developed a method for the analysis of hydrophilic metabolites in various biological samples. Therefore, we used hydrophilic interaction chromatography (HILIC) for separation, combined with a high-resolution mass spectrometer (MS) with the aim of separating and analyzing a wide range of compounds. We used 41 reference standards with different chemical properties to develop an optimal chromatographic separation. MS analysis was performed with a set of pooled biological samples human cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and human plasma. The raw data was processed in a first step with Compound Discoverer 3.1 (CD), a software tool for untargeted metabolomics with the aim to create a list of unknown compounds. In a second step, we combined the results obtained with our internally analyzed reference standard list to process the data along with the Lipid Data Analyzer 2.6 (LDA), a software tool for a targeted approach. In order to demonstrate the advantages of this combined target-list based and untargeted approach, we not only compared the relative standard deviation (%RSD) of the technical replicas of pooled plasma samples (n = 5) and pooled CSF samples (n = 3) with the results from CD, but also with XCMS Online, a well-known software tool for untargeted metabolomics studies. As a result of this study we could demonstrate with our HILIC-MS method that all standards could be either separated by chromatography, including isobaric leucine and isoleucine or with MS by different mass. We also showed that this combined approach benefits from improved precision compared to well-known metabolomics software tools such as CD and XCMS online. Within the pooled plasma samples processed by LDA 68% of the detected compounds had a %RSD of less than 25%, compared to CD and XCMS online (57% and 55%). The improvements of precision in the pooled CSF samples were even more pronounced, 83% had a %RSD of less than 25% compared to CD and XCMS online (28% and 8% compounds detected). Particularly for low concentration samples, this method showed a more precise peak area integration with its 3D algorithm and with the benefits of the LDAs graphical user interface for fast and easy manual curation of peak integration. The here-described method has the advantage that manual curation for larger batch measurements remains minimal due to the target list containing the information obtained by an untargeted approach.

Biosynthetic regulatory network of flavonoid metabolites in stems and leaves of Salvia miltiorrhiza

“…Untargeted metabolomics analysis was performed using LC–MS/MS. The data obtained were processed by Compound Discoverer 3.1 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) 49 . The metabolomics software package metaX and metabolomic information analysis processing were used for data preprocessing, statistical analysis, metabolite classification, and functional annotation 50 .…”

Metabolome and exposome profiling of the biospecimens from COVID-19 patients in India

“…For compound detection signal to noise ratio (S/N) was kept as 3, and the minimum peak intensity was 10 6 . To assign compound annotation on MS/MS level, three different data sources, such as mzCloud, ChemSpider, and Metabolika, with a mass tolerance of 5 ppm, were used [36]. All the duplicate runs were treated as individual samples in the data analysis.…”

Recurrent Topics in Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics and Lipidomics—Standardization, Coverage, and Throughput

“…However, despite this fact and the development of different DPP parameter optimization tools − it often suffers from extensive problems. Those include false negative and false positive reports of ion species as well as wrongly reported abundance values and other issues. − It should be noted that data pre-processing is not challenging because it is hard to perform, but because it is hard to perform well. This point was laid out by Sindelar et al, who demonstrated why poor performance of data preprocessing could lead to much harder downstream data analysis .…”