ArticleScientific reports2023
Evaluation of extraction methods for untargeted metabolomic studies for future applications in zebrafish larvae infection models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advance in the Sample Pretreatments for Drug Analysis in Zebrafish.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Optimizing multiomics sample preparation: comparative evaluation of extraction protocols for HepG2 cells.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Zebrafish metabolomics: a comprehensive approach to understanding health and disease.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- Development of plant extracts as substrates for untargeted transporter substrate identification inFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Metabolomics in Preclinical Drug Safety Assessment: Current Status and Future Trends.Metabolites · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sample preparation in untargeted metabolomics should allow reproducible extractions of as many molecules as possible. Thus, optimizing sample preparation is crucial. This study compared six different extraction procedures to find the most suitable for extracting zebrafish larvae in the context of an infection model. Two one-phase extractions employing methanol (I) and a single miscible phase of methanol/acetonitrile/water (II) and two two-phase methods using phase separation between chloroform and methanol/water combinations (III and IV) were tested. Additional bead homogenization was used for methods III and IV (III_B and IV_B). Nine internal standards and 59 molecules of interest (MoInt) related to mycobacterial infection were used for method evaluation. Two-phase methods (III and IV) led to a lower feature count, higher peak areas of MoInt, especially amino acids, and higher coefficients of variation in comparison to one-phase extractions. Adding bead homogenization increased feature count, peak areas, and CVs. Extraction I showed higher peak areas and lower CVs than extraction II, thus being the most suited one-phase method. Extraction III and IV showed similar results, with III being easier to execute and less prone to imprecisions. Thus, for future applications in zebrafish larvae metabolomics and infection models, extractions I and III might be chosen.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.