Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40766901›Full record

ReviewApplications in plant sciences

Analysis of plant metabolomics data using identification-free approaches.

Xinyu Yuan, Nathaniel S S Smith, Gaurav D Moghe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applications in plant sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

3 authors.

Xinyu YuanPlant Biology Section, School of Integrative Plant Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA.ORCID 0009-0006-9199-7652
Nathaniel S S SmithPlant Biology Section, School of Integrative Plant Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA.ORCID 0009-0004-5672-8081
Gaurav D MoghePlant Biology Section, School of Integrative Plant Science Cornell University Ithaca New York USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8761-064X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant metabolomes are structurally diverse. One of the most popular techniques for sampling this diversity is liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), which typically detects thousands of peaks from single organ extracts, many representing true metabolites. These peaks are usually annotated using in-house retention time or spectral libraries, in silico fragmentation libraries, and increasingly through computational techniques such as machine learning. Despite these advances, over 85% of LC-MS peaks remain unidentified, posing a major challenge for data analysis and biological interpretation. This bottleneck limits our ability to fully understand the diversity, functions, and evolution of plant metabolites. In this review, we first summarize current approaches for metabolite identification, highlighting their challenges and limitations. We further focus on alternative strategies that bypass the need for metabolite identification, allowing researchers to interpret global metabolic patterns and pinpoint key metabolite signals. These methods include molecular networking, distance-based approaches, information theory-based metrics, and discriminant analysis. Additionally, we explore their practical applications in plant science and highlight a set of useful tools to support researchers in analyzing complex plant metabolomics data. By adopting these approaches, researchers can enhance their ability to uncover new insights into plant metabolism.

Indexed as

data analysisevolutionliquid chromatography–mass spectrometrymachine learningmetabolic diversitymetabolomicsphytochemistrystatistical analyses

Identifiers

PMID40766901
PMCPMC12319716

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.