4.8 Article

Optimizing the Use of Quality Control Samples for Signal Drift Correction in Large-Scale Urine Metabolic Profiling Studies

Journal

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 84, Issue 6, Pages 2670-2677

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac202733q

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Damascus University
  2. Chromatography Society
  3. Medical Research Council [G0801056B] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The evident importance of metabolic profiling for biomarker discovery and hypothesis generation has led to interest in incorporating this technique into large-scale studies, e.g., clinical and molecular phenotyping studies. Nevertheless, these lengthy studies mandate the use of analytical methods with proven reproducibility. An integrated experimental plan for LC-MS profiling of urine, involving sample sequence design and postacquisition correction routines, has been developed. This plan is based on the optimization of the frequency of analyzing identical quality control (QC) specimen injections and using the QC intensities of each metabolite feature to construct a correction trace for all the samples. The QC-based methods were tested against other current correction practices, such as total intensity normalization. The evaluation was based on the reproducibility obtained from technical replicates of 46 samples and showed the feature-based signal correction (FBSC) methods to be superior to other methods, resulting in similar to 1000 and 600 metabolite features with coefficient of variation (CV) < 15% within and between two blocks, respectively. Additionally, the required frequency of QC sample injection was investigated and the best signal correction results were achieved with at least one QC injection every 2 h of urine sample injections (n = 10). Higher rates of QC injections (1 QC/h) resulted in slightly better correction but at the expense of longer total analysis time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available