Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preanalytical Aspects and Sample Quality Assessment in Metabolomics Studies of Human Blood

Yin, Peiyuan, Peter, Andreas, Franken, Holger, Zhao, Xinjie, Neukamm, Sabine S, Rosenbaum, Lars, Lucio, Marianna, Zell, Andreas, Häring, Hans-Ulrich, Xu, Guowang, Lehmann, Rainer·2013·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Metabolomics is a powerful tool that is increasingly used in clinical research. Although excellent sample quality is essential, it can easily be compromised by undetected preanalytical errors. We set out to identify critical preanalytical steps and biomarkers that reflect preanalytical inaccuracies. METHODS: We systematically investigated the effects of preanalytical variables (blood collection tubes, hemolysis, temperature and time before further processing, and number of freeze–thaw cycles) on metabolomics studies of clinical blood and plasma samples using a nontargeted LC-MS approach. RESULTS: Serum and heparinate blood collection tubes led to chemical noise in the mass spectra. Distinct, significant changes of 64 features in the EDTA-plasma metabolome were detected when blood was exposed to room temperature for 2, 4, 8, and 24 h. The resulting pattern was characterized by increases in hypoxanthine and sphingosine 1-phosphate (800% and 380%, respectively, at 2 h). In contrast, the plasma metabolome was stable for up to 4 h when EDTA blood samples were immediately placed in iced water. Hemolysis also caused numerous changes in the metabolic profile. Unexpectedly, up to 4 freeze–thaw cycles only slightly changed the EDTA-plasma metabolome, but increased the individual variability. CONCLUSIONS: Nontargeted metabolomics investigations led to the following recommendations for the preanalytical phase: test the blood collection tubes, avoid hemolysis, place whole blood immediately in ice water, use EDTA plasma, and preferably use nonrefrozen biobank samples. To exclude outliers due to preanalytical errors, inspect the biomarker signal intensities reflecting systematic as well as accidental and preanalytical inaccuracies before processing the bioinformatics data.

Overview

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 · 10.1373/clinchem.2012.199257

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Yin, P., Peter, A., Franken, H., Zhao, X., Neukamm, S. S., Rosenbaum, L., Lucio, M., Zell, A., Häring, H.-U., Xu, G., & Lehmann, R.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2013-05-01
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
833-845
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2129246819
Cited by
272
References
3
FWCI
9.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preanalytical Aspects and Sample Quality Assessment in Metabolomics Studies of Human Blood. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1373/clinchem.2012.199257
The paper
Yin, P., Peter, A., Franken, H., Zhao, X., Neukamm, S. S., Rosenbaum, L., Lucio, M., Zell, A., Häring, H.-U., Xu, G., & Lehmann, R. (2013). Preanalytical Aspects and Sample Quality Assessment in Metabolomics Studies of Human Blood. Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.199257

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.