4.6 Article

Reliability of Serum Metabolite Concentrations over a 4-Month Period Using a Targeted Metabolomic Approach

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0021103

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany (Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung, Forderkennzeichen) [01GI0922]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolomics is a promising tool for discovery of novel biomarkers of chronic disease risk in prospective epidemiologic studies. We investigated the between- and within-person variation of the concentrations of 163 serum metabolites over a period of 4 months to evaluate the metabolite reliability expressed by the intraclass-correlation coefficient (ICC: the ratio of between-person variance and total variance). The analyses were performed with the BIOCRATES AbsoluteIDQ (TM) targeted metabolomics technology, including acylcarnitines, amino acids, glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids and hexose in 100 healthy individuals from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-Potsdam study who had provided two fasting blood samples 4 months apart. Overall, serum reliability of metabolites over a 4-month period was good. The median ICC of the 163 metabolites was 0.57. The highest ICC was observed for hydroxysphingomyelin C14:1 (ICC = 0.85) and the lowest was found for acylcarnitine C3:1 (ICC = 0). Reliability was high for hexose (ICC = 0.76), sphingolipids (median ICC = 0.66; range: 0.24-0.85), amino acids (median ICC = 0.58; range: 0.41-0.72) and glycerophospholipids (median ICC = 0.58; range: 0.03-0.81). Among acylcarnitines, reliability of short and medium chain saturated compounds was good to excellent (ICC range: 0.50-0.81). Serum reliability was lower for most hydroxyacylcarnitines and monounsaturated acylcarnitines (ICC range: 0.11-0.45 and 0.00-0.63, respectively). For most of the metabolites a single measurement may be sufficient for risk assessment in epidemiologic studies with healthy subjects.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据