4.6 Review

Systematic Review of NMR-Based Metabolomics Practices in Human Disease Research

Journal

METABOLITES
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/metabo12100963

Keywords

NMR spectroscopy; metabolomics; workflow; variation; standardisation

Funding

  1. Mason Foundation
  2. Open Medicine Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is a widely used analytical technique in metabolomics, providing minimal sample preparation and high reproducibility. This systematic review summarizes the most commonly employed NMR metabolomics methods for serum, plasma, and urine studies from 2019 to 2020 and discusses their impact on data and result interpretation, as well as the importance of reporting.
Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is one of the principal analytical techniques for metabolomics. It has the advantages of minimal sample preparation and high reproducibility, making it an ideal technique for generating large amounts of metabolomics data for biobanks and large-scale studies. Metabolomics is a popular omics technology and has established itself as a comprehensive exploratory biomarker tool; however, it has yet to reach its collaborative potential in data collation due to the lack of standardisation of the metabolomics workflow seen across small-scale studies. This systematic review compiles the different NMR metabolomics methods used for serum, plasma, and urine studies, from sample collection to data analysis, that were most popularly employed over a two-year period in 2019 and 2020. It also outlines how these methods influence the raw data and the downstream interpretations, and the importance of reporting for reproducibility and result validation. This review can act as a valuable summary of NMR metabolomic workflows that are actively used in human biofluid research and will help guide the workflow choice for future research.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available