Metabolomics 

About: Metabolomics is an academic journal published by Springer Science+Business Media. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Metabolomics & Metabolome. It has an ISSN identifier of 1573-3882. Over the lifetime, 1994 publications have been published receiving 66486 citations. The journal is also known as: metabolomic chemistry.

Proposed minimum reporting standards for chemical analysis

Abstract: There is a general consensus that supports the need for standardized reporting of metadata or information describing large-scale metabolomics and other functional genomics data sets. Reporting of standard metadata provides a biological and empirical context for the data, facilitates experimental replication, and enables the re-interrogation and comparison of data by others. Accordingly, the Metabolomics Standards Initiative is building a general consensus concerning the minimum reporting standards for metabolomics experiments of which the Chemical Analysis Working Group (CAWG) is a member of this community effort. This article proposes the minimum reporting standards related to the chemical analysis aspects of metabolomics experiments including: sample preparation, experimental analysis, quality control, metabolite identification, and data pre-processing. These minimum standards currently focus mostly upon mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy due to the popularity of these techniques in metabolomics. However, additional input concerning other techniques is welcomed and can be provided via the CAWG on-line discussion forum at http://msi-workgroups.sourceforge.net/ or http://Msi-workgroups-feedback@lists.sourceforge.net. Further, community input related to this document can also be provided via this electronic forum.

Assessment of PLSDA cross validation

Abstract: Classifying groups of individuals based on their metabolic profile is one of the main topics in metabolomics research. Due to the low number of individuals compared to the large number of variables, this is not an easy task. PLSDA is one of the data analysis methods used for the classification. Unfortunately this method eagerly overfits the data and rigorous validation is necessary. The validation however is far from straightforward. Is this paper we will discuss a strategy based on cross model validation and permutation testing to validate the classification models. It is also shown that too optimistic results are obtained when the validation is not done properly. Furthermore, we advocate against the use of PLSDA score plots for inference of class differences.

Capillary electrophoresis mass spectrometry-based saliva metabolomics identified oral, breast and pancreatic cancer-specific profiles

Abstract: Saliva is a readily accessible and informative biofluid, making it ideal for the early detection of a wide range of diseases including cardiovascular, renal, and autoimmune diseases, viral and bacterial infections and, importantly, cancers. Saliva-based diagnostics, particularly those based on metabolomics technology, are emerging and offer a promising clinical strategy, characterizing the association between salivary analytes and a particular disease. Here, we conducted a comprehensive metabolite analysis of saliva samples obtained from 215 individuals (69 oral, 18 pancreatic and 30 breast cancer patients, 11 periodontal disease patients and 87 healthy controls) using capillary electrophoresis time-of-flight mass spectrometry (CE-TOF-MS). We identified 57 principal metabolites that can be used to accurately predict the probability of being affected by each individual disease. Although small but significant correlations were found between the known patient characteristics and the quantified metabolites, the profiles manifested relatively higher concentrations of most of the metabolites detected in all three cancers in comparison with those in people with periodontal disease and control subjects. This suggests that cancer-specific signatures are embedded in saliva metabolites. Multiple logistic regression models yielded high area under the receiver-operating characteristic curves (AUCs) to discriminate healthy controls from each disease. The AUCs were 0.865 for oral cancer, 0.973 for breast cancer, 0.993 for pancreatic cancer, and 0.969 for periodontal diseases. The accuracy of the models was also high, with cross-validation AUCs of 0.810, 0.881, 0.994, and 0.954, respectively. Quantitative information for these 57 metabolites and their combinations enable us to predict disease susceptibility. These metabolites are promising biomarkers for medical screening.

Statistical strategies for avoiding false discoveries in metabolomics and related experiments

Abstract: Many metabolomics, and other high-content or high-throughput, experiments are set up such that the primary aim is the discovery of biomarker metabolites that can discriminate, with a certain level of certainty, between nominally matched ‘case’ and ‘control’ samples. However, it is unfortunately very easy to find markers that are apparently persuasive but that are in fact entirely spurious, and there are well-known examples in the proteomics literature. The main types of danger are not entirely independent of each other, but include bias, inadequate sample size (especially relative to the number of metabolite variables and to the required statistical power to prove that a biomarker is discriminant), excessive false discovery rate due to multiple hypothesis testing, inappropriate choice of particular numerical methods, and overfitting (generally caused by the failure to perform adequate validation and cross-validation). Many studies fail to take these into account, and thereby fail to discover anything of true significance (despite their claims). We summarise these problems, and provide pointers to a substantial existing literature that should assist in the improved design and evaluation of metabolomics experiments, thereby allowing robust scientific conclusions to be drawn from the available data. We provide a list of some of the simpler checks that might improve one’s confidence that a candidate biomarker is not simply a statistical artefact, and suggest a series of preferred tests and visualisation tools that can assist readers and authors in assessing papers. These tools can be applied to individual metabolites by using multiple univariate tests performed in parallel across all metabolite peaks. They may also be applied to the validation of multivariate models. We stress in particular that classical p-values such as “p < 0.05”, that are often used in biomedicine, are far too optimistic when multiple tests are done simultaneously (as in metabolomics). Ultimately it is desirable that all data and metadata are available electronically, as this allows the entire community to assess conclusions drawn from them. These analyses apply to all high-dimensional ‘omics’ datasets.

Translational biomarker discovery in clinical metabolomics: an introductory tutorial

Abstract: Metabolomics is increasingly being applied towards the identification of biomarkers for disease diagnosis, prognosis and risk prediction. Unfortunately among the many published metabolomic studies focusing on biomarker discovery, there is very little consistency and relatively little rigor in how researchers select, assess or report their candidate biomarkers. In particular, few studies report any measure of sensitivity, specificity, or provide receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves with associated confidence intervals. Even fewer studies explicitly describe or release the biomarker model used to generate their ROC curves. This is surprising given that for biomarker studies in most other biomedical fields, ROC curve analysis is generally considered the standard method for performance assessment. Because the ultimate goal of biomarker discovery is the translation of those biomarkers to clinical practice, it is clear that the metabolomics community needs to start “speaking the same language” in terms of biomarker analysis and reporting-especially if it wants to see metabolite markers being routinely used in the clinic. In this tutorial, we will first introduce the concept of ROC curves and describe their use in single biomarker analysis for clinical chemistry. This includes the construction of ROC curves, understanding the meaning of area under ROC curves (AUC) and partial AUC, as well as the calculation of confidence intervals. The second part of the tutorial focuses on biomarker analyses within the context of metabolomics. This section describes different statistical and machine learning strategies that can be used to create multi-metabolite biomarker models and explains how these models can be assessed using ROC curves. In the third part of the tutorial we discuss common issues and potential pitfalls associated with different analysis methods and provide readers with a list of nine recommendations for biomarker analysis and reporting. To help readers test, visualize and explore the concepts presented in this tutorial, we also introduce a web-based tool called ROCCET (ROC Curve Explorer & Tester, http://www.roccet.ca). ROCCET was originally developed as a teaching aid but it can also serve as a training and testing resource to assist metabolomics researchers build biomarker models and conduct a range of common ROC curve analyses for biomarker studies.