Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38488666›Full record

ArticleGigaScience2024

Data processing solutions to render metabolomics more quantitative: case studies in food and clinical metabolomics using Metabox 2.0.

Kwanjeera Wanichthanarak, Ammarin In-On, Sili Fan, Oliver Fiehn, Arporn Wangwiwatsin, Sakda Khoomrung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GigaScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Plasma metabolomic analysis in Thai EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer patients.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  4. LC-QTOF-MSComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Quantifying fecal and plasma short-chain fatty acids in healthy Thai individuals.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Kwanjeera WanichthanarakSiriraj Center of Research Excellence in Metabolomics and Systems Biology (SiCORE-MSB), Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-0245-0833
Ammarin In-OnSiriraj Center of Research Excellence in Metabolomics and Systems Biology (SiCORE-MSB), Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-9618-6473
Sili FanDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
Oliver FiehnWest Coast Metabolomics Center, University of California Davis Genome Center, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6261-8928
Arporn WangwiwatsinDepartment of Systems Biosciences and Computational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-4536-4492
Sakda KhoomrungSiriraj Center of Research Excellence in Metabolomics and Systems Biology (SiCORE-MSB), Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9461-8597

Funding

Khon Kaen University 630000050069Mahidol University R016420001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In classic semiquantitative metabolomics, metabolite intensities are affected by biological factors and other unwanted variations. A systematic evaluation of the data processing methods is crucial to identify adequate processing procedures for a given experimental setup. Current comparative studies are mostly focused on peak area data but not on absolute concentrations. In this study, we evaluated data processing methods to produce outputs that were most similar to the corresponding absolute quantified data. We examined the data distribution characteristics, fold difference patterns between 2 metabolites, and sample variance. We used 2 metabolomic datasets from a retail milk study and a lupus nephritis cohort as test cases. When studying the impact of data normalization, transformation, scaling, and combinations of these methods, we found that the cross-contribution compensating multiple standard normalization (ccmn) method, followed by square root data transformation, was most appropriate for a well-controlled study such as the milk study dataset. Regarding the lupus nephritis cohort study, only ccmn normalization could slightly improve the data quality of the noisy cohort. Since the assessment accounted for the resemblance between processed data and the corresponding absolute quantified data, our results denote a helpful guideline for processing metabolomic datasets within a similar context (food and clinical metabolomics). Finally, we introduce Metabox 2.0, which enables thorough analysis of metabolomic data, including data processing, biomarker analysis, integrative analysis, and data interpretation. It was successfully used to process and analyze the data in this study. An online web version is available at http://metsysbio.com/metabox.

Indexed as

Lupus NephritisSoftwareCohort StudiesData AccuracyHumansMetabolomicsdata processingmetabolomicsnormalizationquantitative analysisR packagescalingsemiquantitative analysistransformation

Identifiers

PMID38488666
PMCPMC10941642

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.