Deep metabolic profiling assessment of tissue extraction protocols for three model organisms
Author:
Gegner Hagen M.ORCID, Mechtel NilsORCID, Heidenreich ElenaORCID, Wirth Angela, Cortizo Fabiola Garcia, Bennewitz KatrinORCID, Fleming Thomas, Andresen CarolinORCID, Freichel MarcORCID, Teleman AurelioORCID, Kroll JensORCID, Hell RüdigerORCID, Poschet GernotORCID
Abstract
AbstractMetabolic profiling harbors the potential to better understand various disease entities such as cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease or COVID-19. Deciphering these intricate pathways in human studies requires large sample sizes as a means of reducing variability. While such broad human studies have discovered new associations between a given disease and certain affected metabolites, i.e. biomarkers, they often provide limited functional insights. To design more standardized experiments, reduce variability in the measurements and better resolve the functional component of such dynamic metabolic profiles, model organisms are frequently used. Standardized rearing conditions and uniform sampling strategies are prerequisites towards a successful metabolomic study. However, further aspects such as the choice of extraction protocol and analytical technique can influence the outcome drastically. Here, we employed a highly standardized metabolic profiling assay analyzing 630 metabolites across three commonly used model organisms (Drosophila, mouse and Zebrafish) to find the optimal extraction protocols for various matrices. Focusing on parameters such as metabolite coverage, metabolite yield and variance between replicates we compared seven extraction protocols. We found that the application of a combination of 75% ethanol and methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE), while not producing the broadest coverage and highest yields, was the most reproducible extraction protocol. We were able to determine up to 530 metabolites in mouse kidney samples, 509 in mouse liver, 422 in Zebrafish and 388 in Drosophila and discovered a core overlap of 261 metabolites in these four matrices. To enable other scientists to search for the most suitable extraction protocol in their experimental context and interact with this comprehensive data, we have integrated our data set in the open-source shiny app “MetaboExtract”. This will enable scientists to search for their metabolite or metabolite class of interest, compare it across the different tested extraction protocols and sample types as well as find reference concentrations.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference25 articles.
1. Abbiss, H. , Maker, G. L. , & Trengove, R. D. (2019). Metabolomics approaches for the diagnosis and understanding of kidney diseases. Metabolites, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/metabo9020034 2. Andresen, C. , Boch, T. , Gegner, H. M. , Mechtel, N. , Narr, A. , Birgin, E. , Rasbach, E. , Rahbari, N. , Trumpp, A. , Poschet, G. , Hübschmann, D. (2021). Comparison of extraction methods for intracellular metabolomics. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.15.470649 3. Metabolomics of type 1 and type 2 diabetes;International Journal of Molecular Sciences,2019 4. Sex differences in systemic metabolites at four life stages: cohort study with repeated metabolomics;BMC Medicine,2021
|
|