4.4 Article

Model-driven data curation pipeline for LC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics

期刊

METABOLOMICS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11306-023-01976-1

关键词

Mass spectrometry; Liquid chromatography; Quality control practices; Data curation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a model to describe the sources of variation in LC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics measurements and provides a comprehensive curation pipeline and quality assessment tools for data quality review.
IntroductionThere is still no community consensus regarding strategies for data quality review in liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based untargeted metabolomics. Assessing the analytical robustness of data, which is relevant for inter-laboratory comparisons and reproducibility, remains a challenge despite the wide variety of tools available for data processing.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to provide a model to describe the sources of variation in LC-MS-based untargeted metabolomics measurements, to use it to build a comprehensive curation pipeline, and to provide quality assessment tools for data quality review.MethodsHuman serum samples (n=392) were analyzed by ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS) using an untargeted metabolomics approach. The pipeline and tools used to process this dataset were implemented as part of the open source, publicly available TidyMS Python-based package.ResultsThe model was applied to understand data curation practices used by the metabolomics community. Sources of variation, which are often overlooked in untargeted metabolomic studies, were identified in the analysis. New tools were used to characterize certain types of variations.ConclusionThe developed pipeline allowed confirming data robustness by comparing the experimental results with expected values predicted by the model. New quality control practices were introduced to assess the analytical quality of data.

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

4.4
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