4.5 Article

Impact of sample containers on gas chromatography mass spectrometry based plasma untargeted and targeted metabolomics

Journal

PROTEOMICS
Volume 21, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pmic.202000196

Keywords

gas chromatography mass spectrometry; metabolomics; plasma; sample container

Funding

  1. Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine [A1-AFD018191Z0134]
  2. GuangdongKey Laboratory for Translational Cancer Research of Chinese Medicine [2018B030322011]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that different sample container materials and manufacturing procedures from different vendors can significantly influence GC-MS metabolomics analysis. It is recommended to use the same type of container from the same manufacturer throughout the entire project to ensure the accuracy of the results.
Plasticware and glassware used in the sample processing stage could result in different analysis performance for macromolecules, which led to the speculation that a similar effect could happen to small molecules. To confirm the speculation, pooled human plasma sample spiked with and without metabolite standards was prepared with three most commonly used container materials (glass, deactivated glass and polypropylene) supplied by different manufacturers after a two-step liquid-liquid extraction, followed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) based untargeted and targeted metabolomics. The results showed that both GC-MS-based targeted and untargeted metabolomics could be influenced significantly by not only the container material but also the manufacturing procedures employed by different vendors. As a general guideline, it would be highly practical to use the same type of container from the same manufacturer during a whole project. Our study could be extremely valuable for the fellow researchers when dealing with the sample containers for GC-MS-based untargeted and targeted metabolomics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available