4.6 Article

Evaluation of Extraction Protocols for Simultaneous Polar and Non-Polar Yeast Metabolite Analysis Using Multivariate Projection Methods

期刊

METABOLITES
卷 3, 期 3, 页码 592-605

出版社

MDPI AG
DOI: 10.3390/metabo3030592

关键词

metabolite extraction; chloroform/methanol/water partitioning; GC-MS; fatty acid methyl esters; polar metabolites; PCA; OPLS; chemoinformatics

资金

  1. National Sciences Engineering Research Council of Canada
  2. Alberta Innovates Health Solutions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolomic and lipidomic approaches aim to measure metabolites or lipids in the cell. Metabolite extraction is a key step in obtaining useful and reliable data for successful metabolite studies. Significant efforts have been made to identify the optimal extraction protocol for various platforms and biological systems, for both polar and non-polar metabolites. Here we report an approach utilizing chemoinformatics for systematic comparison of protocols to extract both from a single sample of the model yeast organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Three chloroform/methanol/water partitioning based extraction protocols found in literature were evaluated for their effectiveness at reproducibly extracting both polar and non-polar metabolites. Fatty acid methyl esters and methoxyamine/trimethylsilyl derivatized aqueous compounds were analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry to evaluate non-polar or polar metabolite analysis. The comparative breadth and amount of recovered metabolites was evaluated using multivariate projection methods. This approach identified an optimal protocol consisting of 64 identified polar metabolites from 105 ion hits and 12 fatty acids recovered, and will potentially attenuate the error and variation associated with combining metabolite profiles from different samples for untargeted analysis with both polar and non-polar analytes. It also confirmed the value of using multivariate projection methods to compare established extraction protocols.

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