↓ Skip to main content

Comprehensive assessment of measurement uncertainty in 13C-based metabolic flux experiments

Overview of attention for article published in Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Comprehensive assessment of measurement uncertainty in 13C-based metabolic flux experiments
Published in
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00216-018-1017-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa Mairinger, Wolfhard Wegscheider, David Alejandro Peña, Matthias G. Steiger, Gunda Koellensperger, Jürgen Zanghellini, Stephan Hann

Abstract

In the field of metabolic engineering 13C-based metabolic flux analysis experiments have proven successful in indicating points of action. As every step of this approach is affected by an inherent error, the aim of the present work is the comprehensive evaluation of factors contributing to the uncertainty of nonnaturally distributed C-isotopologue abundances as well as to the absolute flux value calculation. For this purpose, a previously published data set, analyzed in the course of a 13C labeling experiment studying glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway in a yeast cell factory, was used. Here, for isotopologue pattern analysis of these highly polar metabolites that occur in multiple isomeric forms, a gas chromatographic separation approach with preceding derivatization was used. This rendered a natural isotope interference correction step essential. Uncertainty estimation of the resulting C-isotopologue distribution was performed according to the EURACHEM guidelines with Monte Carlo simulation. It revealed a significant increase for low-abundance isotopologue fractions after application of the necessary correction step. For absolute flux value estimation, isotopologue fractions of various sugar phosphates, together with the assessed uncertainties, were used in a metabolic model describing the upper part of the central carbon metabolism. The findings pinpointed the influence of small isotopologue fractions as sources of error and highlight the need for improved model curation. Graphical abstract ᅟ.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 24%
Professor 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 29%
Engineering 5 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 May 2018.
All research outputs
#19,975,266
of 25,411,814 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#6,081
of 9,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,355
of 342,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#91
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,411,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,635 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 342,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.