| Title |
Current trends and challenges in sample preparation for global metabolomics using liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-012-6039-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dajana Vuckovic |
| Abstract |
The choice of sample-preparation method is extremely important in metabolomic studies because it affects both the observed metabolite content and biological interpretation of the data. An ideal sample-preparation method for global metabolomics should (i) be as non-selective as possible to ensure adequate depth of metabolite coverage; (ii) be simple and fast to prevent metabolite loss and/or degradation during the preparation procedure and enable high-throughput; (iii) be reproducible; and (iv) incorporate a metabolism-quenching step to represent true metabolome composition at the time of sampling. Despite its importance, sample preparation is often an overlooked aspect of metabolomics, so the focus of this review is to explore the role, challenges, and trends in sample preparation specifically within the context of global metabolomics by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). This review will cover the most common methods including solvent precipitation and extraction, solid-phase extraction and ultrafiltration, and discuss how to improve analytical quality and metabolite coverage in metabolomic studies of biofluids, tissues, and mammalian cells. Recent developments in this field will also be critically examined, including in vivo methods, turbulent-flow chromatography, and dried blood spot sampling. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 611 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Austria | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | <1% |
| Unknown | 587 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 163 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 91 | 15% |
| Researcher | 87 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 34 | 6% |
| Other | 94 | 15% |
| Unknown | 95 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 174 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 120 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 77 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 26 | 4% |
| Other | 64 | 10% |
| Unknown | 120 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 September 2020.
All research outputs
#5,240,151
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#801
of 9,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,863
of 176,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#10
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,618 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 176,512 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.