ArticleMetabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society2024
Multiplatform metabolomic interlaboratory study of a whole human stool candidate reference material from omnivore and vegan donors.
Article in Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Brain-gut crosstalk associated with brain ageing in young and mid-life adults: a multicohort cross-sectional study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- The SIMPLIFY Protocol: A Monophasic Extraction System Suitable for Exposomics, Metabolomics, Lipidomics, and Proteomics Research.Analytical chemistry · 2025Article
- Microbiome Research in Greece: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Study.Microorganisms · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
65 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHuman metabolomics has made significant strides in understanding metabolic changes and their implications for human health, with promising applications in diagnostics and treatment, particularly regarding the gut microbiome. However, progress is hampered by issues with data comparability and reproducibility across studies, limiting the translation of these discoveries into practical applications.
objectivesThis study aims to evaluate the fit-for-purpose of a suite of human stool samples as potential candidate reference materials (RMs) and assess the state of the field regarding harmonizing gut metabolomics measurements.
methodsAn interlaboratory study was conducted with 18 participating institutions. The study allowed for the use of preferred analytical techniques, including liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).
resultsDifferent laboratories used various methods and analytical platforms to identify the metabolites present in human stool RM samples. The study found a 40% to 70% recurrence in the reported top 20 most abundant metabolites across the four materials. In the full annotation list, the percentage of metabolites reported multiple times after nomenclature standardization was 36% (LC-MS), 58% (GC-MS) and 76% (NMR). Out of 9,300 unique metabolites, only 37 were reported across all three measurement techniques.
conclusionThis collaborative exercise emphasized the broad chemical survey possible with multi-technique approaches. Community engagement is essential for the evaluation and characterization of common materials designed to facilitate comparability and ensure data quality underscoring the value of determining current practices, challenges, and progress of a field through interlaboratory studies.
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.