Comparison of accuracy and precision between multipoint calibration, single point calibration and relative quantification for targeted metabolomic analysis
| dc.contributor.author | Khamis, Mona M. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Klemm, Nancy | |
| dc.contributor.author | Adamko, Darryl | |
| dc.contributor.author | El-Aneed, Anas | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-10T20:57:48Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2019-06-10T20:57:48Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2018-09 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Targeted metabolomics requires accurate and precise quantification of candidate biomarkers, often through tandem mass spectrometric (MS/MS) analysis. Differential isotope labeling (DIL) improves mass spectrometric (MS) analysis in metabolomics by derivatizing metabolites with two isotopic forms of the same reagent. Despite its advantages, DIL-liquid chromatographic (LC)-MS/MS can result in substantial increase in workload when fully validated quantitative methods are required. To decrease the workload, we hypothesized that single point calibration or relative quantification could be used as alternative methods. Either approach will result in significant saving in resources and time. To test our hypothesis, six urinary metabolites were selected as model compounds. Urine samples were analyzed using a fully-validated multipoint dansyl chloride-DIL-LC-MS/MS method. Samples were reprocessed using single point calibration and relative quantification modes. Our results demonstrated that the performance of single point calibration or relative quantification was inferior, for some metabolites, to multipoint calibration. The lower limit of quantification failed in the quantification of ethanolamine in most of participant samples using single point calibration. In addition, its precision was not acceptable in one participant during serine and ethanolamine quantification. On the other hand, relative quantification resulted in the least accurate data. In fact, none of the data generated from relative quantification for serine was comparable to that obtained from multipoint calibration. Finally, while single point calibration showed an overall acceptable performance for the majority of the model compounds, we cannot extrapolate the findings to other metabolites within the same analytical run. Analysts are advised to assess accuracy and precision for each metabolite in which single point calibration is the intended quantification mean. | en_US |
| dc.description.sponsorship | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC); Western Economic Diversification Canada | en_US |
| dc.description.version | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
| dc.identifier.citation | Mona M. Khamis, Nancy Klemm, Darryl J Adamko and Anas El-Aneed (2018). Comparison of accuracy and precision between multipoint calibration, single point calibration and relative quantification for targeted metabolomic analysis. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2018 Sep;410(23):5899-5913. | en_US |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s00216-018-1205-5 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 30006724 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10388/12124 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | SpringerLink | en_US |
| dc.rights | Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Canada | * |
| dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ | * |
| dc.subject | metabolomics; single point calibration; validation; quantification; differential isotope labeling, dansyl chloride | en_US |
| dc.title | Comparison of accuracy and precision between multipoint calibration, single point calibration and relative quantification for targeted metabolomic analysis | en_US |
| dc.type | Postprint | en_US |