ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2022
Evaluation of fresh, frozen, and lyophilized fecal samples by SPME and derivatization methods using GC×GC-TOFMS.
Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancing fecal volatilome profiling by comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry and image pattern recognition.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Discrimination and characterization analysis of key flavor compounds from TianshuiFood chemistry: X · 2025Article
- Evaluation of solutions for stabilizing feces in metabolomics studies using GC × GC-TOFMS.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2025Article
- Evaluation of normalization strategies for GC-based metabolomics.Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society · 2024Article
- Article
- The Metabolomic Profile of the Essential Oil fromMetabolites · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFeces is a highly complex matrix containing thousands of metabolites. It also contains live bacteria and enzymes, and does not have a static chemistry. Consequently, proper control of pre-analytical parameters is critical to minimize unwanted variations in the samples. However, no consensus currently exists on how fecal samples should be stored/processed prior to analysis.
objectiveThe effects of sample handling conditions on fecal metabolite profiles and abundances were examined using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled to time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC×GC-TOFMS).
methodsSolid-phase microextraction (SPME) and derivatization via trimethylsilylation (TMS) were employed as complementary techniques to evaluate fresh, frozen, and lyophilized fecal samples with expanded coverage of the fecal metabolome. The total number of detected peaks and the signal intensities were compared among the different handling conditions.
resultsOur analysis revealed that the metabolic profiles of fecal samples depend greatly on sample handling and processing conditions, which had a more pronounced effect on results obtained by SPME than by TMS derivatization. Overall, lyophilization resulted in a greater amount of total and class-specific metabolites, which may be attributed to cell lysis and/or membrane disintegration.
conclusionsA comprehensive comparison of the sample handling conditions provides a deeper understanding of the physicochemical changes that occur within the samples during freezing and lyophilization. Based on our results, snap-freezing at -80 °C would be preferred over lyophilization for handling samples in the field of fecal metabolomics as this imparts the least change from the fresh condition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35426515What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.