Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36158577›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in molecular biosciences2022

Trivialities in metabolomics: Artifacts in extraction and analysis.

R Verpoorte, H K Kim, Y H Choi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. From "Maraschino" to Cell Cultures: A Deep Study onMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

3 authors.

R VerpoorteNatural Products Laboratory, Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, The, Netherlands.
H K KimNatural Products Laboratory, Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, The, Netherlands.
Y H ChoiNatural Products Laboratory, Institute of Biology Leiden, Leiden University, Leiden, The, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this review is to show the risks of artifact formation in metabolomics analyses. Metabolomics has developed in a major tool in system biology approaches to unravel the metabolic networks that are the basis of life. Presently TLC, LC-MS, GC-MS, MS-MS and nuclear magnetic resonance are applied to analyze the metabolome of all kind of biomaterials. These analytical methods require robust preanalytical protocols to extract the small molecules from the biomatrix. The quality of the metabolomics analyses depends on protocols for collecting and processing of the biomaterial, including the methods for drying, grinding and extraction. Also the final preparation of the samples for instrumental analysis is crucial for highly reproducible analyses. The risks of artifact formation in these steps are reviewed from the point of view of the commonly used solvents. Examples of various artifacts formed through chemical reactions between solvents or contaminations with functional groups in the analytes are discussed. These reactions involve, for example, the formation of esters,

Indexed as

artifactsdecompositionextractionmetabolomicssolvents

Identifiers

PMID36158577
PMCPMC9493124

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.