ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Comparative metabolomic profiling of bovine urine using different sample processing methods by non-targeted GC-MS analysis.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sample-processing strategies markedly influence metabolite recovery in non-targeted GC–MS-based urinary metabolomics. This study aimed to evaluate and compare tangential flow filtration (TFF) and urease treatment, applied individually and in combination, to optimise bovine urine sample preparation for non-targeted GC–MS analysis. Urine samples collected from Karan Fries cows (n = 8) were processed using three distinct workflows: (1) TFF-filtered urine, (2) TFF-filtered urine followed by urease treatment, and (3) raw urine treated with urease. All processed aliquots underwent identical extraction procedures and two-step derivatisation prior to GC–MS analysis. Comparative evaluation revealed substantial differences in metabolite yield, diversity and reproducibility among the processing methods. TFF-filtered urine achieved the highest metabolite coverage (282 total metabolites, including 123 unique compounds), followed by the combined TFF and urease treatment (241 total, 74 unique), whereas urease-treated raw urine exhibited markedly reduced coverage (159 total, 37 unique), indicating that TFF filtration enhanced reproducibility and improved matrix removal. Analysis of chemical class distribution demonstrated that TFF-filtered samples contained higher proportions of carbohydrates, esters, hydrocarbons, amino acids and polyols, while urease-treated raw urine was comparatively enriched in hydrocarbons and aromatic compounds. Notably, several compound classes, including dihydrofuranones, pyran derivatives and quinols, were exclusively detected in TFF-processed samples. Pathway enrichment analysis further indicated that TFF-filtered urine provided the most comprehensive metabolic representation, with significant enrichment of pathways associated with carbohydrate metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis, ascorbate and aldarate metabolism, and fatty acid metabolism. Overall, TFF filtration emerged as the most effective sample-processing strategy for maximising metabolite diversity and pathway coverage in bovine urinary metabolomics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41677966What 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.