↓ Skip to main content

Separating the wheat from the chaff: a prioritisation pipeline for the analysis of metabolomics datasets

Overview of attention for article published in Metabolomics, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Separating the wheat from the chaff: a prioritisation pipeline for the analysis of metabolomics datasets
Published in
Metabolomics, July 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11306-011-0341-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andris Jankevics, Maria Elena Merlo, Marcel de Vries, Roel J. Vonk, Eriko Takano, Rainer Breitling

Abstract

Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) is a powerful and widely applied method for the study of biological systems, biomarker discovery and pharmacological interventions. LC-MS measurements are, however, significantly complicated by several technical challenges, including: (1) ionisation suppression/enhancement, disturbing the correct quantification of analytes, and (2) the detection of large amounts of separate derivative ions, increasing the complexity of the spectra, but not their information content. Here we introduce an experimental and analytical strategy that leads to robust metabolome profiles in the face of these challenges. Our method is based on rigorous filtering of the measured signals based on a series of sample dilutions. Such data sets have the additional characteristic that they allow a more robust assessment of detection signal quality for each metabolite. Using our method, almost 80% of the recorded signals can be discarded as uninformative, while important information is retained. As a consequence, we obtain a broader understanding of the information content of our analyses and a better assessment of the metabolites detected in the analyzed data sets. We illustrate the applicability of this method using standard mixtures, as well as cell extracts from bacterial samples. It is evident that this method can be applied in many types of LC-MS analyses and more specifically in untargeted metabolomics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 4 2%
South Africa 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Lithuania 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 172 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 57 30%
Researcher 32 17%
Student > Master 25 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 38 20%
Unknown 15 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 78 41%
Chemistry 33 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Computer Science 7 4%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 20 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,203,487
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from Metabolomics
#354
of 1,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,764
of 118,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Metabolomics
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,290 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 118,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.