Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20376177›Full record

ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2009

Inter-laboratory reproducibility of fast gas chromatography-electron impact-time of flight mass spectrometry (GC-EI-TOF/MS) based plant metabolomics.

J William Allwood, Alexander Erban, Sjaak de Koning, Warwick B Dunn, Alexander Luedemann, Arjen Lommen, Lorraine Kay, Ralf Löscher, Joachim Kopka, Royston Goodacre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Rapid in situPlant methods · 2017
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

J William Allwood
Alexander Erban
Sjaak de Koning
Warwick B Dunn
Alexander Luedemann
Arjen Lommen
Lorraine Kay
Ralf Löscher
Joachim Kopka
Royston Goodacre

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The application of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to the 'global' analysis of metabolites in complex samples (i.e. metabolomics) has now become routine. The generation of these data-rich profiles demands new strategies in data mining and standardisation of experimental and reporting aspects across laboratories. As part of the META-PHOR project's (METAbolomics for Plants Health and OutReach: http://www.meta-phor.eu/) priorities towards robust technology development, a GC-MS ring experiment based upon three complex matrices (melon, broccoli and rice) was launched. All sample preparation, data processing, multivariate analyses and comparisons of major metabolite features followed standardised protocols, identical models of GC (Agilent 6890N) and TOF/MS (Leco Pegasus III) were also employed. In addition comprehensive GCxGC-TOF/MS was compared with 1 dimensional GC-TOF/MS. Comparisons of the paired data from the various laboratories were made with a single data processing and analysis method providing an unbiased assessment of analytical method variants and inter-laboratory reproducibility. A range of processing and statistical methods were also assessed with a single exemplary dataset revealing near equal performance between them. Further investigations of long-term reproducibility are required, though the future generation of global and valid metabolomics databases offers much promise.

Identifiers

PMID20376177
PMCPMC2847149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.