Abstract
Introduction
LC–MS-based untargeted metabolomics has become increasingly popular due to the vast amount of information gained in a single analysis. Many studies utilize metabolomics to profile metabolic changes in various representative biofluids, tissues, or other sample types. Most analyses are performed measuring changes in the metabolic pool of a single biological matrix due to an altered phenotype, such as disease versus normal. Measurements in such experiments are typically highly reproducible with little variation due to analytical and technological advancements in mass spectrometry. With the expanded application of metabolomics into various non-analytical scientific disciplines, the emergence of studies comparing the signal intensities of specific analytes across different biological matrices (e.g. plasma vs. urine) is becoming more common, but the matrix effect between sample types is often neglected. Additionally, the practice of comparing the signal intensities of different analytes and correlating to relative abundance is also increasingly prevalent, but the response ratio between analytes due to differences in ionization efficiency is not always accounted for in data analysis. This report serves to communicate and raise awareness of these two well-recognized issues to prevent improper data interpretation in the field of metabolomics.
Objectives
We demonstrate the impact of matrix effects and ionization efficiency with labeled analytical standards in human plasma, serum, and urine and describe how the direct comparison of non-quantitative signal intensities between biofluids, as well as between different analytes in the same biofluid, in untargeted metabolomics is inaccurate without proper response corrections.
Methods
Human plasma, serum, and urine (n = 4 technical replicates per biofluid) were spiked with a panel of labeled internal standards all at identical concentrations, simultaneously extracted, and analyzed by UHPLC-HRMS. Signal intensities were compared for demonstration of the impact of matrix effects in untargeted metabolomics. A neat mixture of two co-eluting, structurally-similar labeled standards at the same concentration was also analyzed to demonstrate the effect of ionization efficiency on signal intensity.
Results
Despite being spiked at identical concentrations, labeled standards we examined in this study showed significant differences in their signal intensities between biofluids, as well as from each other in the same biofluid, due to matrix effects. Co-eluting standards were also found to yield significantly different signal intensities at identical concentrations due to differences in ionization efficiency.
Conclusions
Due to the presence of matrix effects in untargeted, non-quantitative metabolomics, the signal intensity of any single analyte cannot be directly compared to the signal intensity of that same analyte (or any other analyte) between any two different matrices. Due to differences in ionization efficiency, the signal intensity of any single analyte cannot be directly compared to the signal intensity of any other analyte, even in the same matrix.
Graphic Abstract
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cambiaghi, A., Ferrario, M., & Masseroli, M. (2017). Analysis of metabolomic data: Tools, current strategies and future challenges for omics data integration. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 18(3), 498–510. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbw031.
Cappiello, A., Famiglini, G., Palma, P., Pierini, E., Termopoli, V., & Trufelli, H. (2008). Overcoming matrix effects in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry, 80(23), 9343–9348. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac8018312.
Chamberlain, C. A., Hatch, M., & Garrett, T. J. (2019). Metabolomic and lipidomic characterization of Oxalobacter formigenes strains HC1 and OxWR by UHPLC-HRMS. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-019-01639-y.
Du, J., Yuan, Z., Ma, Z., Song, J., Xie, X., & Chen, Y. (2014). KEGG-PATH: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes-based pathway analysis using a path analysis model. Molecular BioSystems, 10(9), 2441–2447. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4mb00287c.
Dunn, W., Broadhurst, D., Atherton, H., Goodacre, R., & Griffin, J. (2011). Systems level studies of mammalian metabolomes: The roles of mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Chemical Society Reviews, 40(1), 387–426. https://doi.org/10.1039/b906712b.
Fang, N., Yu, S., Ronis, M. J., & Badger, T. M. (2015). Matrix effects break the LC behavior rule for analytes in LC-MS/MS analysis of biological samples. Exp Biol Med (Maywood), 240(4), 488–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1535370214554545.
Guijas, C., Montenegro-Burke, J. R., Domingo-Almenara, X., Palermo, A., Warth, B., Hermann, G., et al. (2018). METLIN: A technology platform for identifying knowns and unknowns. Analytical Chemistry, 90(5), 3156–3164. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.7b04424.
Ikonomou, M., Blades, A., & Kebarle, P. (1990). Investigations of the electrospray interface for liquid-chromatography mass-spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry, 62(9), 957–967. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac00208a012.
Jiang, H., Cao, H., Zhang, Y., & Fast, D. M. (2012). Systematic evaluation of supported liquid extraction in reducing matrix effect and improving extraction efficiency in LC-MS/MS based bioanalysis for 10 model pharmaceutical compounds. Journal of Chromatography B, 891–892, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchromb.2012.02.031.
Johnson, W., Soule, M., & Kujawinski, E. (2017). Extraction efficiency and quantification of dissolved metabolites in targeted marine metabolomics. Limnology and Oceanography-Methods, 15(4), 417–428. https://doi.org/10.1002/lom3.10181.
Matuszewski, B. K., Constanzer, M. L., & Chavez-Eng, C. M. (1998). Matrix effect in quantitative LC/MS/MS analyses of biological fluids: A method for determination of finasteride in human plasma at picogram per milliliter concentrations. Analytical Chemistry, 70(5), 882–889.
Matuszewski, B. K., Constanzer, M. L., & Chavez-Eng, C. M. (2003). Strategies for the assessment of matrix effect in quantitative bioanalytical methods based on HPLC-MS/MS. Analytical Chemistry, 75(13), 3019–3030.
Peisl, B., Schymanski, E., & Wilmes, P. (2018). Dark matter in host-microbiome metabolomics: Tackling the unknowns-A review. Analytica Chimica Acta, 1037, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2017.12.034.
Redestig, H., Kobayashi, M., Saito, K., & Kusano, M. (2011). Exploring matrix effects and quantification performance in metabolomics experiments using artificial biological gradients. Analytical Chemistry, 83(14), 5645–5651. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac200786y.
Schrimpe-Rutledge, A. C., Codreanu, S. G., Sherrod, S. D., & McLean, J. A. (2016). Untargeted metabolomics strategies-challenges and emerging directions. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry, 27(12), 1897–1905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13361-016-1469-y.
Todd, J. F. J. (1991). Recommendations for nomenclature and symbolism for mass spectroscopy (including an appendix of terms used in vacuum technology). (Recommendations 1991). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 63(10), 1541–1566. https://doi.org/10.1351/pac199163101541.
Tonidandel, L., & Seraglia, R. (2007). Matrix effect, signal suppression and enhancement in LC–ESI–MS. In A. Cappiello (Ed.), Advances in LC–MS instrumentation. Amsterdam: Elseveir.
Trivedi, D. K., Hollywood, K. A., & Goodacre, R. (2017). Metabolomics for the masses: The future of metabolomics in a personalized world. New Horizons in Translational Medicine, 3(6), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nhtm.2017.06.001.
Tugizimana, F., Steenkamp, P., Piater, L., & Dubery, I. (2018). Mass spectrometry in untargeted liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry metabolomics: Electrospray ionisation parameters and global coverage of the metabolome. Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 32(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcm.8010.
Wang, S., Cyronak, M., & Yang, E. (2007). Does a stable isotopically labeled internal standard always correct analyte response? A matrix effect study on a LC/MS/MS method for the determination of carvedilol enantiomers in human plasma. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, 43(2), 701–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2006.08.010.
Wehrens, R., Hageman, J. A., van Eeuwijk, F., Kooke, R., Flood, P. J., Wijnker, E., et al. (2016). Improved batch correction in untargeted MS-based metabolomics. Metabolomics, 12, 88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-016-1015-8.
Wishart, D. S., Feunang, Y. D., Marcu, A., Guo, A. C., Liang, K., Vázquez-Fresno, R., et al. (2018). HMDB 4.0: The human metabolome database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Research, 46(D1), D608–D617. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx1089.
Zhang, A., Sun, H., Wang, P., Han, Y., & Wang, X. (2012). Modern analytical techniques in metabolomics analysis. Analyst, 137(2), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.1039/c1an15605e.
Zhou, W., Yang, S., & Wang, P. (2017). Matrix effects and application of matrix effect factor. Bioanalysis, 9(23), 1839–1844. https://doi.org/10.4155/bio-2017-0214.
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health Grants U24DK097209 and 2R01DK088892-05A1. The authors would like to acknowledge IROA Technologies (Bolton, MA, USA) for their donation of the U-13C-labeled yeast extract as part of our collaboration.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors read and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was granted for collection and experimental use of human serum. Other biofluids used in this study were purchased commercially for research use only.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chamberlain, C.A., Rubio, V.Y. & Garrett, T.J. Impact of matrix effects and ionization efficiency in non-quantitative untargeted metabolomics. Metabolomics 15, 135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-019-1597-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-019-1597-z