ArticleMetabolites2024
Comparison of Various Extraction Approaches for Optimized Preparation of Intracellular Metabolites from Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Fibroblasts for NMR-Based Study.
Article in Metabolites, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Anti-Tumor Effects of Statins in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metabolomics has proven to be a sensitive tool for monitoring biochemical processes in cell culture. It enables multi-analysis, clarifying the correlation between numerous metabolic pathways. Together with other analysis, it thus provides a global view of a cell's physiological state. A comprehensive analysis of molecular changes is also required in the case of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), which currently represent an essential portion of cells used in regenerative medicine. Reproducibility and correct measurement are closely connected to careful metabolite extraction, and sample preparation is always a critical point. Our study aimed to compare the efficiencies of four harvesting and six extraction methods. Several organic reagents (methanol, ethanol, acetonitrile, methanol-chloroform, MTBE) and harvesting approaches (trypsinization vs. scraping) were tested. We used untargeted nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR) to determine the most efficient method for the extraction of metabolites from human adherent cells, specifically human dermal fibroblasts adult (HDFa) and dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs). A comprehensive dataset of 29 identified and quantified metabolites were determined to possess statistically significant differences in the abundances of several metabolites when the cells were detached mechanically to organic solvent compared to when applying enzymes mainly in the classes of amino acids and peptides for both types of cells. Direct scraping to organic solvent is a method that yields higher abundances of determined metabolites. Extraction with the use of different polar reagents, 50% and 80% methanol, or acetonitrile, mostly showed the same quality. For both HDFa and DPSC cells, the MTBE method, methanol-chloroform, and 80% ethanol extractions showed higher extraction efficiency for the most identified and quantified metabolites Thus, preparation procedures provided a cell sample processing protocol that focuses on maximizing extraction yield. Our approach may be useful for large-scale comparative metabolomic studies of human mesenchymal stem cell samples.
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.