4.5 Article

Metabolic fingerprinting of rat urine by LC/MS Part 2. Data pretreatment methods for handling of complex data

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchromb.2005.07.049

关键词

high-throughput profiling; metabonomics; metabolomics; metabolite profiling; metabolic profiling; metabolic fingerprints; biomarker; biological fluids; hydrophilic interaction; HILIC; LC/MS; ZIC-HILIC column; data pre-treatment; classification; chemometrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolic fingerprinting of biofluids like urine is a useful technique for detecting differences between individuals. With this approach, it might be possible to classify samples according to their biological relevance. In Part I of this work a method for the comprehensive screening of metabolites was described [H. Idborg, L. Zamani, P-O. Edlund, I. Schuppe-Koistinen, S.P. Jacobsson, Part 1, J. Chromatogr. B 828 (2005) 9], using two different liquid chromatography (LC) column set-ups and detection by electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS). Data pretreatment of the resulting data described in [H. Idborg, L. Zamani, P-O. Edlund, 1. Schuppe-Koistinen, S.P. Jacobsson, Part 1, J. Chromatogr. B 828 (2005) 9] is needed to reduce the complexity of the data and to obtain useful metabolic fingerprints. Three different approaches, i.e., reduced dimensionality (RD), MarkerLynx (TM), and MS Resolver (TM), were compared for the extraction of information. The pretreated data were then subjected to multivariate data analysis by partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) for classification. By combining two different chromatographic procedures and data analysis, the detection of metabolites was enhanced as well as the finding of metabolic fingerprints that govern classification. Additional potential biomarkers or xenobiotic metabolites were detected in the fraction containing highly polar compounds that are normally discarded when using reversed-phase liquid chromatography. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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