Erratum to: Metabolomics DOI 10.1007/s11306-011-0310-7

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. In the Materials and methods section the number of samples ready for data analysis is incorrectly given as 301, 295 and 300 for the three groups. The correct numbers are 299, 299 and 289. The incorrect numbers come from an intermediate step in the analysis where some irrelevant standard samples were included. Similar quality of results was obtained on datasets of the size incorrectly given in the paper. The data from the paper can be downloaded from our homepage. http://www.models.life.ku.dk/datasets.