4.7 Article

MetaboQC: A tool for correcting untargeted metabolomics data with mass spectrometry detection using quality controls

期刊

TALANTA
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 29-37

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2017.05.076

关键词

Metabolomics; Quality control; R package; Batch effect; Data pretreatment; Instrumental variability

资金

  1. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad
  2. ISCIII-Subdireccion General de Evaluation
  3. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)
  4. Junta de Andalucia [FQM-1602, CTQ2015-68813-R, PIE14/00005/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nowadays most metabolomic studies involve the analysis of large sets of samples to find a representative metabolite pattern associated to the factor under study. During a sequence of analyses the instrument signals can be subjected to the influence of experimental variability sources. Implementation of quality control (QC) samples to check the contribution of experimental variability is the most common approach in metabolomics. This practice is based on the filtration of molecular entities experiencing a variation coefficient higher than that measured in the QC data set. Although other robust correction algorithms have been proposed, none of them has provided an easy-to-use and easy-to-install tool capable of correcting experimental variability sources. In this research an R-package the MetaboQC has been developed to correct intra-day and inter-days variability using QCs analyzed within a pre-set sequence of experiments. MetaboQC has been tested in two data sets to assess the correction effects by comparing the metabolites variability before and after application of the proposed tool. As a result, the number of entities in QCs significantly different between days was reduced from 86% to 19% in the negative ionization mode and from 100% to 13% in the positive ionization mode. Furthermore, principal component analysis allowed detecting the filtration of instrumental variability associated to the injection order.

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