{"title":"使代谢组学更加定量化的数据处理解决方案:使用 Metabox 2.0 进行的食品和临床代谢组学案例研究。","authors":"Kwanjeera Wanichthanarak, Ammarin In-On, Sili Fan, Oliver Fiehn, Arporn Wangwiwatsin, Sakda Khoomrung","doi":"10.1093/gigascience/giae005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In classic semiquantitative metabolomics, metabolite intensities are affected by biological factors and other unwanted variations. A systematic evaluation of the data processing methods is crucial to identify adequate processing procedures for a given experimental setup. Current comparative studies are mostly focused on peak area data but not on absolute concentrations. In this study, we evaluated data processing methods to produce outputs that were most similar to the corresponding absolute quantified data. We examined the data distribution characteristics, fold difference patterns between 2 metabolites, and sample variance. We used 2 metabolomic datasets from a retail milk study and a lupus nephritis cohort as test cases. When studying the impact of data normalization, transformation, scaling, and combinations of these methods, we found that the cross-contribution compensating multiple standard normalization (ccmn) method, followed by square root data transformation, was most appropriate for a well-controlled study such as the milk study dataset. Regarding the lupus nephritis cohort study, only ccmn normalization could slightly improve the data quality of the noisy cohort. Since the assessment accounted for the resemblance between processed data and the corresponding absolute quantified data, our results denote a helpful guideline for processing metabolomic datasets within a similar context (food and clinical metabolomics). Finally, we introduce Metabox 2.0, which enables thorough analysis of metabolomic data, including data processing, biomarker analysis, integrative analysis, and data interpretation. It was successfully used to process and analyze the data in this study. An online web version is available at http://metsysbio.com/metabox.</p>","PeriodicalId":12581,"journal":{"name":"GigaScience","volume":"13 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10941642/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data processing solutions to render metabolomics more quantitative: case studies in food and clinical metabolomics using Metabox 2.0.\",\"authors\":\"Kwanjeera Wanichthanarak, Ammarin In-On, Sili Fan, Oliver Fiehn, Arporn Wangwiwatsin, Sakda Khoomrung\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/gigascience/giae005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In classic semiquantitative metabolomics, metabolite intensities are affected by biological factors and other unwanted variations. A systematic evaluation of the data processing methods is crucial to identify adequate processing procedures for a given experimental setup. Current comparative studies are mostly focused on peak area data but not on absolute concentrations. In this study, we evaluated data processing methods to produce outputs that were most similar to the corresponding absolute quantified data. We examined the data distribution characteristics, fold difference patterns between 2 metabolites, and sample variance. We used 2 metabolomic datasets from a retail milk study and a lupus nephritis cohort as test cases. When studying the impact of data normalization, transformation, scaling, and combinations of these methods, we found that the cross-contribution compensating multiple standard normalization (ccmn) method, followed by square root data transformation, was most appropriate for a well-controlled study such as the milk study dataset. Regarding the lupus nephritis cohort study, only ccmn normalization could slightly improve the data quality of the noisy cohort. Since the assessment accounted for the resemblance between processed data and the corresponding absolute quantified data, our results denote a helpful guideline for processing metabolomic datasets within a similar context (food and clinical metabolomics). Finally, we introduce Metabox 2.0, which enables thorough analysis of metabolomic data, including data processing, biomarker analysis, integrative analysis, and data interpretation. It was successfully used to process and analyze the data in this study. An online web version is available at http://metsysbio.com/metabox.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GigaScience\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10941642/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GigaScience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giae005\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GigaScience","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giae005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Data processing solutions to render metabolomics more quantitative: case studies in food and clinical metabolomics using Metabox 2.0.
In classic semiquantitative metabolomics, metabolite intensities are affected by biological factors and other unwanted variations. A systematic evaluation of the data processing methods is crucial to identify adequate processing procedures for a given experimental setup. Current comparative studies are mostly focused on peak area data but not on absolute concentrations. In this study, we evaluated data processing methods to produce outputs that were most similar to the corresponding absolute quantified data. We examined the data distribution characteristics, fold difference patterns between 2 metabolites, and sample variance. We used 2 metabolomic datasets from a retail milk study and a lupus nephritis cohort as test cases. When studying the impact of data normalization, transformation, scaling, and combinations of these methods, we found that the cross-contribution compensating multiple standard normalization (ccmn) method, followed by square root data transformation, was most appropriate for a well-controlled study such as the milk study dataset. Regarding the lupus nephritis cohort study, only ccmn normalization could slightly improve the data quality of the noisy cohort. Since the assessment accounted for the resemblance between processed data and the corresponding absolute quantified data, our results denote a helpful guideline for processing metabolomic datasets within a similar context (food and clinical metabolomics). Finally, we introduce Metabox 2.0, which enables thorough analysis of metabolomic data, including data processing, biomarker analysis, integrative analysis, and data interpretation. It was successfully used to process and analyze the data in this study. An online web version is available at http://metsysbio.com/metabox.
期刊介绍:
GigaScience seeks to transform data dissemination and utilization in the life and biomedical sciences. As an online open-access open-data journal, it specializes in publishing "big-data" studies encompassing various fields. Its scope includes not only "omic" type data and the fields of high-throughput biology currently serviced by large public repositories, but also the growing range of more difficult-to-access data, such as imaging, neuroscience, ecology, cohort data, systems biology and other new types of large-scale shareable data.