Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36816540›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmaceutical analysis2023

Solid-phase microextraction of endogenous metabolites from intact tissue validated using a Biocrates standard reference method kit.

Runshan Will Jiang, Karol Jaroch, Janusz Pawliszyn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmaceutical analysis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Runshan Will JiangDepartment of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Karol JarochDepartment of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada.
Janusz PawliszynDepartment of Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada.
University of Waterloo · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improved analytical methods for the metabolomic profiling of tissue samples are constantly needed. Currently, conventional sample preparation methods often involve tissue biopsy and/or homogenization, which disrupts the endogenous metabolome. In this study, solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fibers were used to monitor changes in endogenous compounds in homogenized and intact ovine lung tissue. Following SPME, a Biocrates AbsoluteIDQ assay was applied to make a downstream targeted metabolomics analysis and confirm the advantages of in vivo SPME metabolomics. The AbsoluteIDQ kit enabled the targeted analysis of over 100 metabolites via solid-liquid extraction and SPME. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences between conventional liquid extractions from homogenized tissue and SPME results for both homogenized and intact tissue samples. In addition, principal component analysis revealed separated clustering among all the three sample groups, indicating changes in the metabolome due to tissue homogenization and the chosen sample preparation method. Furthermore, clear differences in free metabolites were observed when extractions were performed on the intact and homogenized tissue using identical SPME procedures. Specifically, a direct comparison showed that 47 statistically distinct metabolites were detected between the homogenized and intact lung tissue samples (

Indexed as

In vivo samplingMetabolomicsSample preparationSolid-phase microextractionSolvent extraction

Identifiers

PMID36816540
PMCPMC9937786
OpenAlexW4303649186

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.