Cited by 269Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation

Interlaboratory Reproducibility of a Targeted Metabolomics Platform for Analysis of Human Serum and Plasma

Open access
Siskos, Alexandros P., Jain, Pooja, Römisch-Margl, Werner, Bennett, Mark, Achaintre, David, Asad, Yasmin, Marney, Luke, Richardson, Larissa +7 more·2017·Analytical Chemistry

Abstract

A critical question facing the field of metabolomics is whether data obtained from different centers can be effectively compared and combined. An important aspect of this is the interlaboratory precision (reproducibility) of the analytical protocols used. We analyzed human samples in six laboratories using different instrumentation but a common protocol (the AbsoluteIDQ p180 kit) for the measurement of 189 metabolites via liquid chromatography (LC) or flow injection analysis (FIA) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). In spiked quality control (QC) samples 82% of metabolite measurements had an interlaboratory precision of <20%, while 83% of averaged individual laboratory measurements were accurate to within 20%. For 20 typical biological samples (serum and plasma from healthy individuals) the median interlaboratory coefficient of variation (CV) was 7.6%, with 85% of metabolites exhibiting a median interlaboratory CV of <20%. Precision was largely independent of the type of sample (serum or plasma) or the anticoagulant used but was reduced in a sample from a patient with dyslipidaemia. The median interlaboratory accuracy and precision of the assay for standard reference plasma (NIST SRM 1950) were 107% and 6.7%, respectively. Likely sources of irreproducibility were the near limit of detection (LOD) typical abundance of some metabolites and the degree of manual review and optimization of peak integration in the LC-MS/MS data after acquisition. Normalization to a reference material was crucial for the semi-quantitative FIA measurements. This is the first interlaboratory assessment of a widely used, targeted metabolomics assay illustrating the reproducibility of the protocol and how data generated on different instruments could be directly integrated in large-scale epidemiological studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02930

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [2]Fiehn O Plant Mol Biol 2002 48 155 171 11860207
  2. [4]Wang-Sattler R Yu Z Herder C Messias AC Floegel A He Y Heim K Campillos M Holzapfel C Thorand B Grallert H Mol Syst Biol 2012 8 615 (pages 1-11) 23010998 PMC3472689
  3. [24]Simón-Manso Y Lowenthal MS Kilpatrick LE Sampson ML Telu KH Rudnick PA Mallard WG Bearden DW Schock TB Tchekhovskoi DV Blonder N Anal Chem 2013 85 11725 11731 24147600
  4. [29]Alwood JW Erban A de Koning S Dunn WB Luedemann A Lommen A Kay L Löscher R Kopka J Goodacre R Metabolomics 2009 5 479 496 20376177 PMC2847149

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siskos, A. P., Jain, P., Römisch-Margl, W., Bennett, M., Achaintre, D., Asad, Y., Marney, L., Richardson, L., Koulman, A., Griffin, J. L., Raynaud, F., Scalbert, A., Adamski, J., Prehn, C., & Keun, H. C.
Affiliations
  • Imperial College London (GB)
  • Institute of Bioinformatics and Systems Biology, Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
  • Institute of Cancer Research (GB)
  • MRC Elsie Widdowson Laboratory (GB)
  • Helmholtz Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
Keun, Hector C.
Venue
Analytical Chemistry
Published
2016-12-13
Volume
89
Issue
1
Pages
656-665
ISSN
  • 0003-2700 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6882
OpenAlex
W2558872626
Cited by
269
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 17
FWCI
11.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Analytical Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion)
  • Site cant be reached (submittedVersion)
  • PuSH - Publication Server of Helmholtz Zentrum München (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MC_PC_13030, MC_PC_13046, MC_UP_A090_1006)
  • Seventh Framework Programme (259867, 266838, 602156, 603864)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Scientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Keywords
interlaboratory reproducibility, targeted metabolomics, human serum, human plasma, LC-MS/MS, flow injection analysis, coefficient of variation, quality control samples, NIST SRM 1950, peak integration, dyslipidemia, detection limit
MeSH terms
Humans, Laboratories, Quality Control, Reference Standards, Reproducibility of Results, Tandem Mass Spectrometry, Metabolomics, Limit of Detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review