4.7 Article

Accounting for biological variation with linear mixed-effects modelling improves the quality of clinical metabolomics data

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2019.04.009

关键词

Confounding biological factors; Linear mixed-effects models; Metabolomics; Multivariate analysis; Subject metadata

资金

  1. Chalermphrakiat Grant, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolite profiles from biological samples suffer from both technical variations and subject-specific variants. To improve the quality of metabolomics data, conventional data processing methods can be employed to remove technical variations. These methods do not consider sources of subject variation as separate factors from biological factors of interest. This can be a significant issue when performing quantitative metabolomics in clinical trials or screening for a potential biomarker in early-stage disease, because changes in metabolism or a desired-metabolite signal are small compared to the total metabolite signals. As a result, inter-individual variability can interfere subsequent statistical analyses. Here, we propose an additional data processing step using linear mixed-effects modelling to readjust an individual metabolite signal prior to multivariate analyses. Published clinical metabolomics data was used to demonstrate and evaluate the proposed method. We observed a substantial reduction in variation of each metabolite signal after model fitting. A comparison with other strategies showed that our proposed method contributed to improved classification accuracy, precision, sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, we highlight the importance of patient metadata as it contains rich information of subject characteristics, which can be used to model and normalize metabolite abundances. The proposed method is available as an R package 1mm2met. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Research Network of Computational and Structural Biotechnology.

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

4.7
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