2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-011-0324-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The biological interpretation of metabolomic data can be misled by the extraction method used

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
59
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 93 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
2
59
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…This method improved metabolite coverage compared with water extraction (1,863 compared with 1,055 features in positive ESI mode and 762 compared with 561 in negative ESI for the MCF-7 line), with particular improvement in detection of nonpolar metabolites. Results obtained by Duportet et al also support the idea of use of multiple solvents, with the authors advocating sequential extraction of metabolites with solvents of decreasing or increasing polarity, while maintaining low temperature, followed by pooling of extracts before analysis as a way of ensuring more complete extraction of most metabolites and resolving the problem of contradictory biological interpretation [34]. Detailed recovery studies will further aid the development of optimum sample-preparation strategies for cell metabolomics.…”
Section: Cell Lysis and Extraction In Cell Metabolomicsmentioning
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This method improved metabolite coverage compared with water extraction (1,863 compared with 1,055 features in positive ESI mode and 762 compared with 561 in negative ESI for the MCF-7 line), with particular improvement in detection of nonpolar metabolites. Results obtained by Duportet et al also support the idea of use of multiple solvents, with the authors advocating sequential extraction of metabolites with solvents of decreasing or increasing polarity, while maintaining low temperature, followed by pooling of extracts before analysis as a way of ensuring more complete extraction of most metabolites and resolving the problem of contradictory biological interpretation [34]. Detailed recovery studies will further aid the development of optimum sample-preparation strategies for cell metabolomics.…”
Section: Cell Lysis and Extraction In Cell Metabolomicsmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…For example, Canelas et al showed that even the relative levels of metabolites (up or downregulation when comparing two conditions) could be distorted by the sample-preparation method, leading to erroneous conclusions [33]. Duportet et al showed that extraction of the same quenched samples by use of four different extraction methods could result in significantly different metabolite levels and contradictory biological interpretation of active metabolite pathways [34]. For instance, the aminoacyl t-RNA pathway was shown to be up-regulated when using metabolite profiles obtained from boiling ethanol and freeze-thaw extractions, and seemed to be down-regulated when using cold methanol or cold methanol with sonication extraction.…”
Section: Importance Of Sample Preparation In Global Metabolomicsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To successfully profile a broad concentration range of chemically diverse metabolites, metabolites were extracted by fractionating plasma samples into pools of species with similar physicochemical properties, using appropriate combinations of organic solvents [32,33]. Three separate UPLC-MS platforms were used to ensure optimal metabolite profiling.…”
Section: Metabolomics Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7 mg cell dry weight (CDW)) was sampled from each culture in a tube from Greiner (Frickenhausen, Germany) containing 12 mL methanol at −20°C in order to quench the metabolism. A freeze-thaw method (adapted from Duportet et al [24]) was applied to extract the cells, as follows: the quenched cell suspension was pelleted via centrifugation at 4000g at −20°C for 5 min using a Sorvall RC 6+ centrifuge from Thermo Scientific. The cell pellets were washed by re-suspension in 3 mL of 80 % (v/v) methanol (−20°C) and were again centrifuged, discarding the supernatant.…”
Section: Sampling and Extraction Of M Elsdeniimentioning
confidence: 99%