Summary of Study ST000990

This data is available at the NIH Common Fund's National Metabolomics Data Repository (NMDR) website, the Metabolomics Workbench, https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org, where it has been assigned Project ID PR000672. The data can be accessed directly via it's Project DOI: 10.21228/M8T68F This work is supported by NIH grant, U2C- DK119886.

See: https://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/about/howtocite.php

Perform statistical analysis  |  Show all samples  |  Show named metabolites  |  Download named metabolite data  
Download mwTab file (text)   |  Download mwTab file(JSON)   |  Download data files (Contains raw data)
Study IDST000990
Study TitleValidating Quantitative Untargeted Lipidomics Across Nine Liquid Chromatography−High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Platforms (part VIII)
Study SummaryLiquid chromatography−mass spectrometry (LC−MS) methods are most often used for untargeted metabolomics and lipidomics. However, methods have not been standardized as accepted “best practice” documents, and reports lack harmonization with respect to quantitative data that enable interstudy comparisons. Researchers use a wide variety of high-resolution mass spectrometers under different operating conditions, and it is unclear if results would yield different biological conclusions depending on the instrument performance. To this end, we used 126 identical human plasma samples and 29 quality control samples from a nutritional intervention study. We investigated lipidomic data acquisitions across nine different MS instruments (1 single TOF, 1 Q/orbital ion trap, and 7 QTOF instruments). Sample preparations, chromatography conditions, and data processing methods were kept identical. Single-point internal standard calibrations were used to estimate absolute concentrations for 307 unique lipids identified by accurate mass, MS/MS spectral match, and retention times. Quantitative results were highly comparable between the LC−MS platforms tested. Using partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) to compare results between platforms, a 92% overlap for the most discriminating lipids based on variable importance in projection (VIP) scores was achieved for all lipids that were detected by at least two instrument platforms. Importantly, even the relative positions of individual samples on the PLS-DA projections were identical. The key for success in harmonizing results was to avoid ion saturation by carefully evaluating linear dynamic ranges using serial dilutions and adjusting the resuspension volume and/or injection volume before running actual study samples.
Institute
University of California, Davis
DepartmentGenome and Biomedical Sciences Facility
LaboratoryWCMC Metabolomics Core
Last NameFiehn
First NameOliver
Address1315 Genome and Biomedical Sciences Facility, 451 Health Sciences Drive, Davis, CA 95616
Emailofiehn@ucdavis.edu
Phone(530) 754-8258
Submit Date2018-06-22
PublicationsDOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.7b03404
Raw Data AvailableYes
Raw Data File Type(s)wiff
Analysis Type DetailLC-MS
Release Date2018-07-17
Release Version1
Oliver Fiehn Oliver Fiehn
https://dx.doi.org/10.21228/M8T68F
ftp://www.metabolomicsworkbench.org/Studies/ application/zip

Select appropriate tab below to view additional metadata details:


Treatment:

Treatment ID:TR001043
Treatment Summary:For this study, we used a subset of samples from our recent study focused on nutritional phenotyping in response to a test meal containing gamma-linolenic acid. Briefly, in a single blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, seven healthy subjects consumed a test meal that consisted of GLA fat (borage oil [denoted GF]) or a control fat (a mixture of corn, safflower, sunflower, and extra-virgin light olive oils [denoted CF]). Compared to the original study, where all subjects were fed on three separate test days for each test meal, a small modification was needed due to sample limitation. Thus, for this study, six subjects were fed on three separate test days for each test meal, while one subject was fed on two separate test days for a control fat meal and four test days for GLA fat (the fourth set was not used in the original study). Plasma samples collected at 0, 2, and 4h in response to the test meals were used for analysis. In total, 126 samples were analyzed out of which 42 were baseline samples (time 0 h), 40 were control fat samples (time 2 and 4 h), and 44 were GLA fat samples (time 2 and 4 h). For quality control, a pool sample consisted of a mixture of nonfasting blood plasma (both control and GLA fat) was used. Also, standard reference material SRM 1950 Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD) was used.
Treatment Protocol Filename:acs_analchem_7b03404.pdf
  logo