Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37161044›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Evaluation of extraction methods for untargeted metabolomic studies for future applications in zebrafish larvae infection models.

Philip Schippers, Sari Rasheed, Yu Mi Park, Timo Risch, Lea Wagmann, Selina Hemmer, Sascha K Manier, Rolf Müller, Jennifer Herrmann, Markus R Meyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors.

Philip SchippersDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Sari RasheedHelmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland (HIPS), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Yu Mi ParkHelmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland (HIPS), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Timo RischHelmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland (HIPS), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Lea WagmannDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Selina HemmerDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Sascha K ManierDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany.
Rolf MüllerHelmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland (HIPS), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Jennifer HerrmannHelmholtz Institute for Pharmaceutical Research Saarland (HIPS), Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (HZI), Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany.
Markus R MeyerDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Saarland University, 66421, Homburg, Germany. markus.meyer@uks.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

MethanolZebrafishAmino AcidsAnimalsLarvaWaterAmino AcidsMethanolWater

Identifiers

PMID37161044
PMCPMC10170104

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.