Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38248837›Full record

ArticleMetabolites2024

Optimizing MS-Based Multi-Omics: Comparative Analysis of Protein, Metabolite, and Lipid Extraction Techniques.

Jeong-Hun Mok, Minjoong Joo, Seonghyeon Cho, Van-An Duong, Haneul Song, Jong-Moon Park, Hookeun Lee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Metabolites, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeong-Hun MokDepartment of Medical Device Management and Research, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, 115, Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06355, Republic of Korea.
Minjoong JooBasilbiotech, 157-20, Sinsong-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22002, Republic of Korea.
Seonghyeon ChoBasilbiotech, 157-20, Sinsong-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22002, Republic of Korea.
Van-An DuongCollege of Pharmacy, Gachon University, 191, Hambangmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21936, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4676-1804
Haneul SongCollege of Pharmacy, Gachon University, 191, Hambangmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21936, Republic of Korea.
Jong-Moon ParkBasilbiotech, 157-20, Sinsong-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 22002, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4407-1383
Hookeun LeeCollege of Pharmacy, Gachon University, 191, Hambangmoe-ro, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon 21936, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8832-6587
Gachon University · KRSungkyunkwan University · KR

Funding

Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology 20018578National Research Foundation of Korea 2017M3D9A1073784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-omics integrates diverse types of biological information from genomic, proteomic, and metabolomics experiments to achieve a comprehensive understanding of complex cellular mechanisms. However, this approach is also challenging due to technical issues such as limited sample quantities, the complexity of data pre-processing, and reproducibility concerns. Furthermore, existing studies have primarily focused on technical performance assessment and the presentation of modified protocols through quantitative comparisons of the identified protein counts. Nevertheless, the specific differences in these comparisons have been minimally investigated. Here, findings obtained from various omics approaches were profiled using various extraction methods (methanol extraction, the Folch method, and Matyash methods for metabolites and lipids) and two digestion methods (filter-aided sample preparation (FASP) and suspension traps (S-Trap)) for resuspended proteins. FASP was found to be more effective for the identification of membrane-related proteins, whereas S-Trap excelled in isolating nuclear-related and RNA-processing proteins. Thus, FASP may be suitable for investigating the immune response and bacterial infection pathways, whereas S-Trap may be more effective for studies focused on the mechanisms of neurodegenerative diseases. Moreover, regarding the choice of extraction method, the single-phase method identified organic compounds and compounds related to fatty acids, whereas the two-phase extraction method identified more hydrophilic compounds such as nucleotides. Lipids with strong hydrophobicity, such as ChE and TG, were identified in the two-phase extraction results. These findings highlight that significant differences among small molecules are primarily identified due to the varying polarities of extraction solvents. These results, obtained by considering variables such as human error and batch effects in the sample preparation step, offer comprehensive and detailed results not previously provided by existing studies, thereby aiding in the selection of the most suitable pre-processing approach.

Indexed as

LC-MSmetabolomicsproteomicssample preparation

Identifiers

PMID38248837
PMCPMC10820684
OpenAlexW4390547030

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.