Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29291722›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Evaluation and comparison of bioinformatic tools for the enrichment analysis of metabolomics data.

Anna Marco-Ramell, Magali Palau-Rodriguez, Ania Alay, Sara Tulipani, Mireia Urpi-Sarda, Alex Sanchez-Pla, Cristina Andres-Lacueva

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing 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

73 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Simulated metabolic profiles reveal biases in pathway analysis methods.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Anna Marco-RamellBiomarkers & Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Nutrition, Food Science and Gastronomy Department, Food Technology Reference Net (XaRTA), Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA-UB), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Pharmacy and Food Science Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Magali Palau-RodriguezBiomarkers & Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Nutrition, Food Science and Gastronomy Department, Food Technology Reference Net (XaRTA), Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA-UB), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Pharmacy and Food Science Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Ania AlayGenetics, Microbiology and Statistics Department, Biology Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sara TulipaniBiomarkers & Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Nutrition, Food Science and Gastronomy Department, Food Technology Reference Net (XaRTA), Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA-UB), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Pharmacy and Food Science Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Mireia Urpi-SardaBiomarkers & Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Nutrition, Food Science and Gastronomy Department, Food Technology Reference Net (XaRTA), Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA-UB), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Pharmacy and Food Science Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Alex Sanchez-PlaGenetics, Microbiology and Statistics Department, Biology Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Cristina Andres-LacuevaBiomarkers & Nutrimetabolomics Laboratory, Nutrition, Food Science and Gastronomy Department, Food Technology Reference Net (XaRTA), Nutrition and Food Safety Research Institute (INSA-UB), Faculty of Pharmacy and Food Sciences, Pharmacy and Food Science Faculty, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. candres@ub.edu.

Funding

Generalitat de Catalunya's Agency AGAUR 2014SGR1566Generalitat de Catalunya's Agency AGAUR 2014 SGR 464ISCII-Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación PI13/01172MINECO Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral fellowshipMINECO MTM2015-64465-C2-1-RMINECO Ramon y Cajal postdoctoral fellowshipUniversitat de Barcelona APIF predoctoral fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBioinformatic tools for the enrichment of 'omics' datasets facilitate interpretation and understanding of data. To date few are suitable for metabolomics datasets. The main objective of this work is to give a critical overview, for the first time, of the performance of these tools. To that aim, datasets from metabolomic repositories were selected and enriched data were created. Both types of data were analysed with these tools and outputs were thoroughly examined.

resultsAn exploratory multivariate analysis of the most used tools for the enrichment of metabolite sets, based on a non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of Jaccard's distances, was performed and mirrored their diversity. Codes (identifiers) of the metabolites of the datasets were searched in different metabolite databases (HMDB, KEGG, PubChem, ChEBI, BioCyc/HumanCyc, LipidMAPS, ChemSpider, METLIN and Recon2). The databases that presented more identifiers of the metabolites of the dataset were PubChem, followed by METLIN and ChEBI. However, these databases had duplicated entries and might present false positives. The performance of over-representation analysis (ORA) tools, including BioCyc/HumanCyc, ConsensusPathDB, IMPaLA, MBRole, MetaboAnalyst, Metabox, MetExplore, MPEA, PathVisio and Reactome and the mapping tool KEGGREST, was examined. Results were mostly consistent among tools and between real and enriched data despite the variability of the tools. Nevertheless, a few controversial results such as differences in the total number of metabolites were also found. Disease-based enrichment analyses were also assessed, but they were not found to be accurate probably due to the fact that metabolite disease sets are not up-to-date and the difficulty of predicting diseases from a list of metabolites.

conclusionsWe have extensively reviewed the state-of-the-art of the available range of tools for metabolomic datasets, the completeness of metabolite databases, the performance of ORA methods and disease-based analyses. Despite the variability of the tools, they provided consistent results independent of their analytic approach. However, more work on the completeness of metabolite and pathway databases is required, which strongly affects the accuracy of enrichment analyses. Improvements will be translated into more accurate and global insights of the metabolome.

Indexed as

Databases, FactualMetabolomeComputational BiologyHumansMetabolomicsBioinformatic toolsDatabaseEnrichmentHumanCycKEGGMetaboliteMetabolomicsOver-representation analysisPathwayReactome

Identifiers

PMID29291722
PMCPMC5749025

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.