Chapter title |
Tissue Multiplatform-Based Metabolomics/Metabonomics for Enhanced Metabolome Coverage
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 17 |
Book title |
Metabolic Profiling
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, April 2018
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-7643-0_17 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-7642-3, 978-1-4939-7643-0
|
Authors |
Panagiotis A. Vorkas, M. R. Abellona U, Jia V. Li, Vorkas, Panagiotis A., Abellona U, M. R., Li, Jia V. |
Abstract |
The use of tissue as a matrix to elucidate disease pathology or explore intervention comes with several advantages. It allows investigation of the target alteration directly at the focal location and facilitates the detection of molecules that could become elusive after secretion into biofluids. However, tissue metabolomics/metabonomics comes with challenges not encountered in biofluid analyses. Furthermore, tissue heterogeneity does not allow for tissue aliquoting. Here we describe a multiplatform, multi-method workflow which enables metabolic profiling analysis of tissue samples, while it can deliver enhanced metabolome coverage. After applying a dual consecutive extraction (organic followed by aqueous), tissue extracts are analyzed by reversed-phase (RP-) and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC-) ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. This pipeline incorporates the required quality control features, enhances versatility, allows provisional aliquoting of tissue extracts for future guided analyses, expands the range of metabolites robustly detected, and supports data integration. It has been successfully employed for the analysis of a wide range of tissue types. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 4 | 29% |
Australia | 1 | 7% |
Denmark | 1 | 7% |
Netherlands | 1 | 7% |
United States | 1 | 7% |
Unknown | 6 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 6 | 43% |
Scientists | 5 | 36% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
Other | 4 | 17% |
Researcher | 4 | 17% |
Student > Bachelor | 1 | 4% |
Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 8% |
Unknown | 7 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 29% |
Chemistry | 3 | 13% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
Other | 2 | 8% |
Unknown | 8 | 33% |