Subscriber access provided by La Trobe University Library
Article
A Novel Strategy for Large-Scale Metabolomics Study by Calibrating Gross and Systematic Errors in Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Yanni Zhao, Zhiqiang Hao, Chunxia Zhao, Jieyu Zhao, Junjie Zhang, Yanli Li, Lili Li, Xin Huang, Xiaohui Lin, Zhongda Zeng, Xin Lu, and Guowang Xu Anal. Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.5b03912 • Publication Date (Web): 12 Jan 2016 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 18, 2016
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
Analytical Chemistry is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
A Novel Strategy for Large-Scale Metabolomics Study by Calibrating Gross and Systematic Errors in Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry
Yanni Zhao1, Zhiqiang Hao2, Chunxia Zhao1, Jieyu Zhao1, Junjie Zhang1, Yanli Li1, Lili Li1, Xin Huang2, Xiaohui Lin2, Zhongda Zeng1,Xin Lu1*, Guowang Xu1*
1
Key Laboratory of Separation Science for Analytical Chemistry, Dalian Institute of
Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Dalian 116023, China. 2
School of Computer Science & Technology, Dalian University of Technology,
Dalian 116023, China.
* Address correspondence to: Prof. Dr. Guowang Xu, Key Laboratory of Separation Science for Analytical Chemistry, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Phone / Fax: +86-411-84379530. E-mail:
[email protected]. Prof. Dr. Xin Lu, Key Laboratory of Separation Science for Analytical Chemistry, Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Phone / Fax: +86-411-84379559. E-mail:
[email protected].
1
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
1
Page 2 of 29
ABSTRACT:
2
Metabolomics is increasingly applied to discover and validate metabolite
3
biomarkers and illuminate biological variations. Combination of multiple analytical
4
batches in large-scale and long-term metabolomics is commonly utilized to generate
5
robust metabolomics data, but the gross and systematic errors are often observed. The
6
appropriate calibration methods are required before statistical analyses. Here, we
7
develop a novel correction strategy for large-scale and long-term metabolomics study,
8
which could integrate metabolomics data from multiple batches and different
9
instruments by calibrating gross and systematic errors. Gross error calibration method
10
applied various statistical and fitting models of the feature ratios between two
11
adjacent quality control (QC) samples to screen and calibrate outlier variables. Virtual
12
QC of each sample was produced by a linear fitting model of the feature intensities
13
between two neighboring QCs to obtain a correction factor and remove the systematic
14
bias. The suggested method was applied to handle metabolic profiling data of 1197
15
plant samples in nine batches analyzed by two gas chromatography-mass
16
spectrometry instruments. The method was evaluated by the relative standard
17
deviations of all the detected peaks, the average Pearson correlation coefficients and
18
Euclidean distance of QCs and non-QC replicates. The results showed the established
19
approach outperforms the commonly used internal standard correction and total
20
intensity signal correction methods, it could be used to integrate the metabolomics
21
data from multiple analytical batches and instruments, and allows the frequency of
22
QC to one injection of every 20 real samples. The suggested method makes a large
23
amount of metabolomics analysis practicable.
24
Keywords: metabolomics, large-scale, gross error, systematic bias
25 2
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
26
INTRODUCTION
27
Metabolomics is an indispensable branch of systems biology research which is
28
focused on the holistically quantitative and qualitative investigations of the changes of
29
the low-molecular-weight metabolites (≤ 1500 Da) related to genetic, environmental
30
and disease perturbations in biological samples.1-3
31
Chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (MS) and nuclear magnetic
32
resonance (NMR) spectroscopy are the most commonly applied tools in metabolomics
33
study.4-7 Among them, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) could
34
efficiently separate and detect some of hydrophilic endogenous metabolites (e.g.,
35
sugar, amino acids and organic acids) after derivatization,8 which are essential
36
substances to maintain the life activities.9,10 To identify and validate the physiological
37
perturbations and metabolite biomarkers of different living systems in the primary
38
metabolome, large amount of samples are to be analyzed using a high-throughput
39
approach based on GC-MS platform.11 In our previous work, a pseudotargeted
40
metabolomics approach has been developed in which the characteristic ion
41
information obtained from the nontargeted metabolomics data without the aid of
42
standard references was used to acquire the metabolome data by using the selective
43
ion monitoring (SIM) GC-MS. It displayed wider linear range, higher sensitivity and
44
better repeatability than nontargeted GC-MS in the full-scan mode.10,12 A stability and
45
repeatability platform is required for the analysis of large sample sizes, unfortunately,
46
until now, it is still not easy to analyze all samples in an analytical batch due to MS
47
signal drift in long-term metabolomics studies. It is often necessary to split large-scale
48
samples into multiple batches.13 The occurring trouble is integration of these data
49
because the gross error and systematic bias are often met in metabolomics data of
50
multiple batches and they were caused by instrument cleaning and calibration, 3
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
51
Page 4 of 29
accessories changing, etc.
52
In the previous studies,13 both the internal standard (IS) correction and total
53
intensity signal correction (TISC) were considered as sample-based signal calibration
54
procedures, which utilized a correction factor (e.g., IS and TISC) of each sample to
55
normalize all of the analytes in a given sample.10,14 Ideally, the IS or TISC should
56
display similar variation tendency to all of the detected metabolites for the removal of
57
systematic drifts. Actually, for cases in which hundreds to thousands of analytes are
58
detected, it is impossible that TISC or IS shows similar changes in signal patterns to
59
all the metabolic features. To solve this problem, some novel tactics of feature-based
60
signal correction have been suggested to calibrate systemic errors in metabolomics
61
study.13,15,16 Wang et al. utilized a single value regression model with the total
62
abundance information of each sample to develop a Batch Normalizer method, which
63
could remove both batch and injection order effects.16 Kamleh et al.13 employed the
64
local or global mean intensity of QCs (LoMec and GoMec) and the local or global
65
linear regression of QC intensity values (LoReg and GoRec) to formulate a correction
66
factor of each feature and further remove the systematic bias. These suggested
67
protocols showed a remarkable improvement in repeatability compared to TISC and
68
IS methods. Fages et al.15 proposed a grouped-batch profile (GBP) calibration method
69
using the systematic bias of feature in each batch to calibrate the actual metabolic
70
response. This established procedure could adjust systematic variation of NMR
71
metabolomic data sets and improve the prediction of multivariate regression models
72
for robust classification of biological samples. However, all of these methods were
73
concentrated on the systematic bias calibration, few were on gross errors correction.
74
Actually, both of gross and systematic errors are to be calibrated in order to obtain a
75
high quality metabolomics data. 4
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 5 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
76
In this study, a GC-MS-based pseudotargeted metabolomics approach was
77
applied to acquire the metabolic profiling data of plant leaves. A novel calibration
78
strategy was developed for the integration of large-scale and long-term metabolomics
79
data, in which both systematic and gross errors could be corrected. A metabolomics
80
data set with 1197 plant leaf samples including 130 QCs in nine batches analyzed by
81
using two different instruments were applied to evaluate this suggested calibration
82
method by calculating the percentages of features (POF) with relative standard
83
deviation (RSD) less than 15%, the average Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and
84
the Euclidean distance (ED) of the replicates in principal components analysis (PCA)
85
scores plots. Additionally, the frequency of QC injection was also investigated.
86 87
EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
88
Strategy description
89
In large-scale GC-MS metabolomics analysis, some necessary instrumental
90
maintenances (e.g., changing accessories and columns, cleaning ion source and tuning
91
instrument), are frequently performed to minimize the signal intensity drifts caused by
92
instrument contamination and column age changes. Additionally, several batches are
93
analyzed due to the different sample collection times or repeatability requirement of
94
the instrument. Sometimes data obtained from different GC-MS instruments within a
95
laboratory or inter-laboratory were to be integrated or compared. In considering above
96
these cases, we design an experiment procedure to analyze 1197 plant leaves
97
including 130 QCs in nine batches (Figure 1). The samples in the first four batches
98
were consecutive injection and some changes in instrument accessories (e.g., the
99
injection port liner and silicone septum) between two batches were conducted to avoid
100
the signal decrease. After a long time intervals between batch 4 and batch 5, batch 6 5
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 6 of 29
101
and batch 7, and batch 8 and batch 9, the MS detector was tuned and the most suitable
102
instrument parameters (e.g., detector voltage, RF Gain, RF offset and lens voltage)
103
were renewed and used to analyze samples. The samples in the first seven batches and
104
last two batches were acquired by GC-QP2010 Plus and GC-MS QP2010,
105
respectively. 188, 209, 25, 25, 156, 97, 354, 84, and 59 samples were analyzed in
106
batches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively. The same QC samples and five kinds
107
of non-QC replicates (i.e., S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5) were analyzed in each batch to
108
evaluate the data quality and calibration performance. S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5 consisted
109
of 43, 43, 31, 24 and 36 fresh tobacco leaf samples, respectively.
110
Systematic and gross errors calibration methods were developed using the data of
111
tobacco leaves from first four batches. Systematic error calibration method was
112
established by inserting the virtual QCs to the linear fitting model of feature intensity
113
of two neighboring QCs to correct the each feature in every sample. The gross error
114
correction was conducted by calculating the ratio of each variable between adjacent
115
QCs to screen outliers and establishing a linear fitting model to correct the outliers.
116
Additionally, the developed method was further applied to correct data of all the 1197
117
samples, and the calibration performance was evaluated by investigating the RSD
118
values of peak intensity, the average ED and r of the samples (Figure S-1 in the
119
Supporting Information).
120 121
Experimental
122
Chemicals. Acetonitrile and isopropanol were HPLC-grade from Merck
123
(Darmstadt, Germany). Ultrapure water was obtained by filtration of distilled water
124
using a Milli-Q system (Boston, USA). Pyridine, methoxyamine hydrochloride and
125
MSTFA
(N-methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)-trifluoroacetamide)
used
as
GC-MS 6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 7 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
126
derivatization reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, USA). Internal
127
standards (ISs), tridecanoic acid and vanilic acid, from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis,
128
USA) were used to monitor repeatability of sample pretreatment and instrument.
129
Damascenone, alpha-ionone, methyl palmitate, methyl linoleate and methyl oleate
130
used as external standards (ESs) to monitor stability of the instrument, were obtained
131
from Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, USA).
132
Sample Preparation. A total of 1197 fresh tobacco leaf samples including 130
133
QC samples were acquired from three main growing districts in China, including
134
Henan, Yunnan and Guizhou provinces. All of fresh leaves were ground to
135
homogeneous powders and stored at -80 oC until metabolite extraction. The equal
136
amount of analytical samples was blended for preparation of the QC to monitor the
137
analytical method and correct the large-scale GC−MS metabolomics data.
138
The preparation workflow of the leaf samples was similar to our previous work
139
with a few modifications.10 About 10 mg leaf powder was soaked in 1.5 mL of the
140
isopropanol/acetonitrile/water (3:3:2, v/v/v) mixed solution (including 20 μL of 0.1
141
mg/mL internal standards and external standards solutions) and adequately
142
vortex-mixed for 4 min to extract leaf metabolites using a Multi-Tube Vortexer
143
(VX-2500). After centrifugation at 14 000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C, 500 μL of
144
supernatant was collected in a new Eppendorf tube, and then freeze-dried using a
145
Labconco centrifugal concentrator for six hours. The dried residue was immersed in
146
100 μL of 20 mg/mL methoxyamine pyridine solution in 37 oC water bath for 90
147
min to protect the ketones and aldehydes. Subsequently, a 60 min silylation reaction
148
was performed by adding 80 μL of MSTFA into the above solution in 37 oC water
149
bath to increase the volatility of the metabolites. Ultimately, the derivatized sample
150
was transferred to a glass vial with a conical insert for GC-MS analysis. 7
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 8 of 29
151
GC-MS Pseudotargeted Method. The samples were analyzed by two different
152
GC-MS instruments (QP 2010 and QP 2010 Plus, Shimadzu, Japan) using two
153
different DB-5 MS fused silica capillary columns (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm,
154
Agilent, USA) in the constant flow mode with 1.2 mL/min high-purity helium
155
(99.9995%) as the carrier gas. The oven temperature was set to 70 oC, maintained for
156
3 min and then increased at 5 oC/min to 310 oC, held for 5 min. The split ratio was set
157
as 10:1 and the interface temperature was adjusted to 280 oC. The electron impact (EI)
158
at 70 eV was used as the ionization mode. The temperature of inlet and ion source
159
were 300 oC and 240 oC, respectively. The scope of mass signal acquisition under
160
full-scan mode was set to 33-600 m/z with a scan rate of 5 scans/s.
161
To establish a pseudotargeted GC-MS method,10,12 the raw data at full-scan mode
162
of a double concentration QC sample was deconvoluted for peak identification using
163
the AMDIS from the NIST (Gaithersburg, USA) and LECO ChromaTOF (St. Joseph,
164
USA) software programs. Subsequently, the selection of the characteristic ions of the
165
metabolic features was performed by calculating the ions characteristic values, which
166
can reflect the ion uniqueness among the co-eluted components,12 using self-designed
167
software and commercial programs (e.g., AMDIS and ChromaTOF). A metabolic
168
feature is defined as a detected chromatographic peak and a single metabolite can
169
have multiple metabolic features.11 The SIM scan group information was obtained by
170
setting the threshold value of the chromatographic retention time (RT) differences
171
between two adjacent peaks as 0.1 min. According to the group information, RT and
172
characteristic ions of metabolites, the SIM acquired method and quantitative approach
173
of the pseudotargeted GC-SIM-MS were established to analyze the tobacco leaves and
174
obtain the peak integration table for the further study. The instrument parameters of
175
pseudotargeted GC-MS were the same as those of full scan method, except for the MS 8
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
176
acquisition mode. Ultimately, 319 metabolites divided into 50 groups were detected
177
by the established pseudotargeted metabolomics method.
178 179
Performance Evaluation
180
The performance of different correction methods could be evaluated using PCA,16
181
which has frequently been applied to extract the main information from
182
high-dimensional data to assess the similarity of analytical samples and the
183
repeatability of analytical method. The parameters R2X value of PCA score plot could
184
reflect the explained fractions of the total variations. To avoid suffering the
185
information loss in the data set, the R2X value of PCA analysis dominated by the
186
number of principal components (PCs), was set more than 85%. The corresponding
187
PCs were applied to calculate the average ED and r between detected replicates.
188
Additionally, the RSD values of the duplicates were another important criterion to
189
evaluate the calibration results.13,16 According to the United States Food and Drug
190
Administration (FDA) guidance,17 the threshold of RSD for the analytical features
191
was set to 15%.
192 193
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
194
Although pseudotargeted metabolomics method has displayed better repeatability
195
compared to nontargeted method,12 its implementation in the integration of large-scale
196
metabolomics data still faces significant challenges due to the gross or systematic
197
errors derived from MS and/or chromatographic column contaminations and changes
198
of instrument accessories and environmental conditions. In order to solve these
199
problems, we developed different algorithms to calibrate the gross error and
200
systematic bias in different batches and instruments (Figure 1). 9
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 10 of 29
201 202
Systematic Error Correction
203
Systematic bias is one of the primary limited factors for the integration of large
204
scale metabolomics data. In this study, we established a Virtual-QC method applying
205
a regression model of metabolic abundances of each feature in ω adjacent QC samples
206
(ω: the number of QCs) to remove the systematic variance (Figure S-2A in the
207
Supporting Information). The intensity value Axij of each metabolic feature j in a
208
special sample i was corrected by a correction factor AQCv_ij, which was obtained by
209
the linear a fitting of signal intensities of feature j in ω adjacent QC samples. Each
210
sample i will have a special AQCv_ij, which was closely related with its inserted position
211
(i+1) in a certain fitting line as defined by Eq. 1,
212
= a (i +1) + b
AQC
v _i j
(1)
213
where a and b are the slope and intercept of the regression line, respectively (Figure
214
S-2B in the Supporting Information). The new corrected intensity value Ax'ij was
215
calculated according to Eq. 2.
216
Ax ′ = ij
Ax
ij
AQC
(2)
v _i j
217 218
Virtual-QC method was compared with the commonly used calibration methods,
219
including four kinds of sample-based correction methods (e.g., TISC, TIQSC, IS and
220
ES) and five kinds of feature-based signal correction methods (e.g., LoMec, LoReg,
221
and GoRec etc.)13 (Table S-1). The average ED, r and RSD values of each peak across
222
all QC samples and the non-QC replicates were used to evaluate the calibration
223
performances.
224
It is important to note that the calibration performances of Virtual-QC method 10
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
225
may be affected by ω values of QCs, which could be optimized according to the data
226
set characteristics of the analytical samples. For our metabolomics data, the values ω
227
from 2 to 4 displayed the similar calibration performances for QCs and non-QC
228
replicates. Hence, the Virtual-QC method at ω = 2 was adopted in the following
229
comparison.
230
For QC samples, all of systematic error correction (SEC) methods displayed
231
distinct improvements in RSD, ED and r compared to the raw data (Figure 2A). The
232
RSD values of 48.90% of the metabolites were lower than 15% for the IS1 (tridecylic
233
acid) calibration method, which outperformed the other sample-based signal
234
correction methods. Nevertheless, three feature-based signal correction procedures
235
including LoMec, LoReg and Virtual-QC methods, have the shortest ED, greatest r
236
and the strongest repeatability overall with 88.09% POF falling below the 15% RSD
237
threshold (Figure 2A). Encouraged by these results, a further optimized work of these
238
three feature-based signal correction methods was performed by calculating the
239
RSD-value, ED and r of five types of non-QC duplicates (i.e., S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5)
240
in first four batches. One interesting observation is that the Virtual-QC approach
241
displayed shorter ED, higher r and POF with RSD less than 15% compared to LoReg
242
and LoMec methods (Figure 2B). Hence, in the following procedures to study the
243
gross error calibration methods, the Virtual-QC approach was employed as a
244
systematic bias correction method.
245 246
Gross Error Correction
247
Gross error is also an important influencing factor of the correction performance
248
and caused by measurement biases, malfunctioning instruments, and so forth.18,19
249
Because the intensity value of a metabolic feature Axij was corrected by its 11
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 12 of 29
250
neighboring virtual AQCv_ij based on the Virtual-QC method (Figure S-2 in the
251
Supporting Information), the gross error in actual QCs could be transferred to the
252
inserted virtual AQCv_ij, further influenced the other test samples and expanded the
253
scope of the error distribution. Therefore, the gross error correction needs to be
254
conducted before systematic bias calibration. Two vital procedures including
255
screening and calibrating outliers, were optimized by comparing the correction
256
performances across the various algorithms. In the following optimization procedures,
257
the calibration performances of gross error correction method was evaluated by a
258
comparison between the gross error plus systematic bias calibration method (G+S)
259
and only SEC approach based on Virtual-QC.
260
Screening outlier features in QCs. Ideally, the intensity ratio of feature j in two
261
adjacent QCs was equal to 1 with consideration of the same QCs analyzed in our
262
experiment. Nevertheless, some feature ratios between two neighboring QCs could
263
obviously deviate from 1, which probably mainly be induced by the gross errors.
264
Hence, we firstly calculated the feature ratios between two adjacent QCs, then four
265
different methods (i.e., Each 5%, All-5%, Each-box and All-box) were tested to define
266
the potential outlier features (Table S-2 in the Supporting Information). Each-5%
267
method calculated 5% of the feature ratios in two adjacent QCs as outliers, other 95%
268
metabolites were thought to be highly reliable (Figure S-3A in the Supporting
269
Information). All-5% method applied all the ratios to calculate the number of outliers
270
based on the 95% metabolites with statistic confidence (Figure S-3B in the Supporting
271
Information). During screening process, the ratios of metabolic features were firstly
272
sorted from small to large, and then the number of outliers was equally selected from
273
two sides of ratio > 1 and < 1. Boxplot is frequently applied to find outliers in data
274
through their interquartile range (IQR), the first quartile (Q1) and third quartile (Q3).20 12
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
275
IQR could be calculated by the Q1 subtracted from Q3. Outliers are observations that
276
fall below Q1 - 1.5(IQR) or above Q3 + 1.5(IQR). Each group ratio and all ratios
277
were used to construct Each-box (Figure S-3C in the Supporting Information) and
278
All-box (Figure S-3D in the Supporting Information) models and detect outlier
279
features, respectively.
280
For QC samples, one interesting observation is that all of the four models of
281
screening potential outlier features showed a remarkable improvement in the
282
repeatability of QCs with more than 99% POF with RSDs falling within 15% (Figure
283
3A). Additionally, the ED-values of QCs in PCA score plots of theses four algorithms
284
combined with the SEC method were also shorter than only SEC method. Further
285
studies found that Each-5% method displayed the best POF with RSD less than 15%,
286
r and the shortest ED than the other methods for five types of non-QC replicates
287
(Figure 3B). Hence, we select Each-5% method to screen potential outlier features.
288
It should be noted that in Each-5% method 5% of the feature ratios in two
289
adjacent QCs were defined as possible outliers, but some of them perhaps have a good
290
repeatability and are not necessary to be corrected. Hence, we need further confirm
291
whether they are the outlier features which are to be calibrated.
292
Firstly, a high quality QC data without outlier variance was needed to further
293
confirm outlier features and calibrate the other QCs. In this experiment, a series of QC
294
samples in a batch are named as QC0, QC1, …, QCn-1, QCn. Based on the practical
295
operation experience, greater gross error possibly is observed in the first QC sample
296
of a batch (i.e. QC0) compared with those in other QCs. Consequently, the second QC
297
(i.e., QC1) in every batch was firstly corrected to obtain a good quality QC by two
298
ratios of AQC /AQC and AQC /AQC (Table S-3 in the Supporting Information). If the ratio
299
of feature j in AQC /AQC was outside the threshold value, but was inside the threshold
2
1
3
2j
2
1j
13
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
300
Page 14 of 29
range for the AQC /AQC , we speculated variable j was an outlier for QC1. 3j
2j
301
Two different algorithms (i.e., To-QCn and Former-QCn) were developed to
302
further judge the outlier features in the other QCs (Table S-4 in the Supporting
303
Information). To-QCn method applied the ratio of feature j in two adjacent QCs to
304
confirm the outliers. If the ratio of a feature j in AQC /AQC' was outside the threshold
305
value, the variable j was an outlier in QCn. The Former-QCn method applied two
306
group ratios of QCs (AQC /AQC and AQC /AQC ) to further select the outlier points.
307
If the ratio of a feature j in AQC /AQC was outside the threshold value, but was inside
308
the threshold range for the AQC /AQC , we speculated variable j was an outlier for
309
QCn. The calibration performances of these two methods on the QCs and other five
310
kinds of non-QC replicates were comprehensively compared. For QCs, there were
311
100%, 98.75% and 88.09% peaks with RSDs falling within 15% in To-QCn,
312
Former-QCn and Virtual-QC, respectively. A shortest ED and highest r in the PCA
313
scores were noticed using To-QCn method to adjust the QCs (Figure 3C). Figure 3D
314
displayed that To-QCn method also produced the highest r, shortest ED and the
315
strongest repeatability profile for the five kinds of non-QC replicates. Therefore,
316
To-QCn method was considered as the best performance method for further
317
confirming outlier features, which could result in remarkable repeatability
318
improvements of the same samples over other methods.
nj
(n+1) j
(n+2) j
nj
(n+1) j
(n+2) j
(n-1)j
(n+1) j
nj
(n+1) j
319
Correction of outliers. After the outlier features of QCs were defined, we need
320
to establish a model to correct the outlier to a reasonable value. The calibration
321
equations for QC0, QC1 and other QCn (n = 2,3,4……) are shown in Eq. 3, Eq. 4 and
322
Eq. 5, respectively.
323
AQC′
0j
AQC = AQC′ × 0j 1j AQC′ 1j
cor r .
(3)
14
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
324
where AQC , AQC' , AQC , and AQC' are the unadjusted QC0, adjusted QC0, unadjusted
325
QC1 and adjusted QC1 responses, respectively.
0j
0j
1j
1j
AQC AQC′ = AQC × 1j 1j 2j AQC 2j
326
cor r .
(4)
327
where AQC , AQC' and AQC are the unadjusted QC1, adjusted QC1 and unadjusted QC2
328
responses, respectively.
1j
1j
AQC′nj = AQC′
329
( n - 1) j
2j
A QCnj × AQC′ (n - 1) j
cor r .
(n = 2, 3, 4, …)
330
where AQC , AQC' , AQC
331
uncorrected QC(n-1) and corrected QC(n-1) responses, respectively.
n j
(n-1) j
(n-1) j
are the uncorrected QCn, corrected QCn,
To obtain the calibration parameters (i.e., [AQC /AQC' ]corr., [AQC /AQC ]corr. and [AQC
332 333
n j
and AQC'
(5)
0j
j
/AQC'
(n-1) j
1j
1j
2j
n
]corr.) in Eq. 3, Eq. 4 and Eq. 5, we tried eight methods (Table S-5 in the
334
Supporting Information) based on the ratios of the features between two adjacent QCs
335
without the outlier features. C1, C2 and C3 methods are based on a linear fitting,
336
polynomial fitting of three times and six times, respectively. Additionally, correlation
337
coefficients of polynomial fitting (R2) were used as index to study different methods,
338
among them, the thresholds of R2 for C4, C5 and C6 methods were 0.9, 0.95, and 0.99,
339
respectively. C7 method directly assigned the lowest and largest threshold values to
340
the outliers from the ratios < 1 and > 1, respectively. C8 was established based on
341
principle of Virtual-QC. If the peak j of the QCn was outlier, the calibration value AQC'
342
was corrected by the virtual AQC' obtained based on AQC v_nj
(n-1)j
nj
and AQC . (n+1)j
343
The performance of the above eight methods for correcting outliers was
344
compared by handling metabolomics data of the QCs and non-QC replicates samples
345
(S1~S5). Both of C1 and C8 calibrated the QC samples to shorter average ED in the
346
PCA score plots compared to other correction methods (Figure 3E). In addition, for 15
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 16 of 29
347
most of replicates, the C1 method displayed greater improvement in repeatability
348
compared to C8 (Figure 3F). Comprehensively considering the correction
349
performance of QCs and the S1~S5 samples, the C1 method was selected as the
350
optimal correction outliers method. Detailed gross and systematic errors calibration
351
algorithms were described in the Supporting Information.
352
PCA score plots were prepared to visualize the calibration performance of the
353
repeatability and similarity of the QC samples. The QC samples of each batch before
354
calibration are separated into four parts along the first two PCs of the PCA score plot
355
depending on batches despite their intrinsic similarity (Figure 4A). On the contrary,
356
the QC samples calibrated by G+S calibration method had a satisfactory performance,
357
which were randomly distributed in the PCA score plot, showing the gross error and
358
batch systematic biases were evidently reduced (Figure 4B). Furthermore, the
359
cumulative RSD curve of QCs peaks indicated that the calibration method based on
360
G+S could significantly decrease RSD value of metabolic features in QC samples and
361
result in a remarkably improved repeatability compared to the crude data (Figure 4C).
362 363
Frequency of QC Injection
364
The frequencies of QC injections could alter the correction factor AQC value,
365
which further influences the performance of each calibration method. In our study, the
366
frequencies of QC injections (F) in analytic sequence were set to one in every 5
367
analyzed samples (1/5), 1/10, and 1/20. The metabolomics data obtained by IS1, TISC,
368
SEC, the optimal G+S method and raw data (RD) without correction, were used to
369
define the optimum frequency of QC injections (Figure 4D).
v_ij
370
Compared to other methods, G+S method showed the strongest improvement for
371
repeatability with RSDs of all features less than 15% under different F (i.e., 1/5, 1/10, 16
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
372
and 1/20). The second best performing method, SEC method based on Virtual-QC
373
algorithm without the calibration of gross error, resulted in 98.75%, 97.81% and
374
96.24% of total peak numbers below the 15% RSD threshold at 1/5, 1/10 and 1/20
375
frequencies, respectively. Moreover, both of the IS and TISC methods had modest
376
calibration abilities, and F didn't affect their calibration results. Nevertheless, the
377
lowest frequencies of QC injection (1/20) had a worst performance compared to 1/5
378
and 1/10 for uncorrected raw data. F had less effects on the correction results of IS,
379
TISC, SEC, and G+S methods. Hence, it is reasonable to keep a F value as 1/20, if
380
G+S correction method is used, which had the 100 % POF with RSD less than 15%
381
and could increase the analysis throughput in a given time.
382 383
Method Application in integrating the metabolic profiling data of nine batches of
384
samples
385
The number of analytical samples was enlarged to 1197 in nine batches analyzed
386
by two different instruments and columns (Figure 1) to further validate the established
387
G+S method, which was compared with the two commonly used sample-based
388
correction methods (i.e. IS and TISC) and two feature-based signal calibration
389
methods (i.e. LoReg and LoMec). It was obvious that G+S method calibrated QCs to
390
a shortest ED and highest r compared to IS1, TISC, LoReg and LoMec (Figure S-4A
391
in the Supporting Information). Furthermore, the RSDs distribution showed the
392
significant increase in peaks number of QC samples with RSD less than 10%, 15%
393
and 20% compared to IS1, TISC, LoReg and LoMec (Figure S-4B in the Supporting
394
Information). Table 1 shows that G+S method also improved the repeatability of five
395
kinds of non-QC replicates (S1~S5) due to the highest r, the shortest ED of 85% PCs
396
in the PCA scores plot and the largest POF with RSDs within 10%, 15%, 20% and 17
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
397
Page 18 of 29
30%.
398
After calibrated by G+S approach, the RSDs of external standard ES1
399
(Damascenon) and internal standard IS1 were decreased from 58.89% to 8.65%
400
(Figure 5A and 5B) and from 62.90% to 12.41% (Figure 5C and 5D), respectively,
401
which also indicates that G+S method can effectively reduce these gross and
402
systematic error influences.
403
The signal response drifts of instrument induced by changes of instrument
404
conditions, can be reflected by the variation tendency of the raw signals of external
405
standard (ES) across different batches, because the same amount of ES was added to
406
sample vial before instrument analysis. The greatest signal changes of instrument
407
were observed between batch 7 and batch 8, which was probably induced by changing
408
GC-MS instrument or column (Figure 5A). The instrument parameter drifts (e.g.,
409
detector voltage, RF Gain, RF offset and lens voltage) by using different tuning files
410
could generate a moderate signal changes by observing the responses drifts of ES1
411
between batches 4 vs 5 and batches 6 vs 7 (Figure 5A). The signal of ES1 from batch
412
1 to batch 4 showed a continuous decline pattern, which was closely related with
413
injection order effects, and the changing glass insert and silicone septum had smaller
414
effects on the signal drifts (Figure 5A).
415
In order to visualize the effects of calibration method on the QCs and the non-QC
416
samples, PCA analysis of 1197 samples based on UV scaling was conducted (Figure
417
5E-F). All of the QC samples and five kinds of the non-QC replicates in nine batches
418
before calibration displayed obvious linear changes in PCA score plot (Figure 6E),
419
while good aggregation results of QCs and non-QC replicates can be obviously
420
observed by the calibration of G+S method (Figure 5F). Moreover, this method can
421
also be used to correct nontargeted metabolomics data. Taking our previous 18
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 19 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
422
nontargeted metabolomics data (n=194, one batch) from GC-MS analysis9 as an
423
example. After calibrated with the suggested method, QCs (n=16) have shorter ED,
424
higher r and lower RSD value (Figure S-5). The RSD of IS (tridecanoic acid) in 194
425
analytical samples was decreased from 8.78% to 7.22%. These data indicate that G+S
426
method can effectively improve the repeatability of nontargeted metabolomics
427
analysis. All the results indicate that the developed G+S method is a universal
428
metabolomics data correction method, which is not only suitable for pesudotargeted
429
but also nontargeted metabolomics data.
430 431
CONCLUSIONS
432
The quality of metabolomics data of large-scale samples set in multiple batches
433
analyzed by different instruments and chromatographic columns could be affected by
434
outliers and systematic errors, which are caused by some unstable environment factors,
435
injection order and batch differences. We developed an novel correction strategy for
436
the integration of large-scale and long-term metabolomics data from pseudotargeted
437
GC−MS by calibrating the outliers and systemic errors and minimizing the frequency
438
of QC injection. Our suggested procedures were as follows,
439
1) correct gross error of large-scale metabolomics data by using Each-5% method
440
to select potential outliers, To-QCn method to further confirm the outlier features, and
441
a linear fitting model of metabolic features to calibrate the outlier variables.
442
2) utilize a feature-based correction algorithm, Virtual-QC, to remove the
443
systematic bias of metabolomics data by using a linear regression model of the
444
intensity values of ω neighborhood QCs of each sample to formulate a correction
445
factor of each feature.
446
3) set the frequency of QC injection in the analytical sequence as one in every 20 19
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 20 of 29
447
real samples (1/20) if the metabolomics data are corrected by the above mentioned
448
G+S calibration method.
449 450
It should be emphasized that although the pseudotargeted method was used in this study, the strategy suggested is also suitable to nontargeted analysis.
451 452
ASSOCIATED CONTENT
453
Supporting Information
454
Additional information as noted in text includes the Algorithm for gross and
455
systematic errors correction, Tables S-1~S5 and Figures S-1~S-5. This material is
456
available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
457 458
AUTHOR INFORMATION
459
Corresponding Authors
460
*E-mail:
[email protected] (X.L.);
[email protected] (G.W.X.).
461 462
Notes
463
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
464 465
Acknowledgements
466
This study has been supported by the National Grand Project (2014ZX08012-002) of
467
Science and Technology of China, the project (No. 21375127), key project (No.
468
21435006) and the creative research group project (No. 21321064) from the National
469
Natural Science Foundation of China.
470 471 20
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 29
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Analytical Chemistry
472
REFERENCES
473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512
(1) Fiehn, O. Plant Mol. Biol. 2002, 48, 155-171. (2) Goodacre, R.; Vaidyanathan, S.; Dunn, W. B.; Harrigan, G. G.; Kell, D. B. Trends Biotechnol. 2004, 22, 245-252. (3) Huang, Q.; Tan, Y.; Yin, P.; Ye, G.; Gao, P.; Lu, X.; Wang, H.; Xu, G. Cancer Res. 2013, 73, 4992-5002. (4) Lisec, J.; Schauer, N.; Kopka, J.; Willmitzer, L.; Fernie, A. R. Nat. Protoc. 2006, 1, 387-396. (5) Alonso, A. P.; Goffman, F. D.; Ohlrogge, J. B.; Shachar-Hill, Y. Plant J. 2007, 52, 296-308. (6) Marti, G.; Erb, M.; Boccard, J.; Glauser, G.; Doyen, G. R.; Villard, N.; Robert, C. A.; Turlings, T. C.; Rudaz, S.; Wolfender, J. L. Plant Cell Environ. 2013, 36, 621-639. (7) Zhang, J. T.; Zhang, Y.; Du, Y. Y.; Chen, S. Y.; Tang, H. R. J. Proteome Res. 2011, 10, 1904-1914. (8) Ye, G. Z.; Zhu, B.; Yao, Z. Z.; Yin, P. Y.; Lu, X.; Kong, H. W.; Fan, F.; Jiao, B. H.; Xu, G. W. J. Proteome Res. 2012, 11, 4361-4372. (9) Zhou, J.; Zhang, L.; Chang, Y. W.; Lu, X.; Zhu, Z.; Xu, G. W. J. Proteome Res. 2012, 11, 4351-4360. (10) Zhao, Y. N.; Zhao, C. X.; Lu, X.; Zhou, H. N.; Li, Y. L.; Zhou, J.; Chang, Y. W.; Zhang, J. J.; Jin, L. F.; Lin, F. C.; Xu, G. W. J. Proteome Res. 2013, 12, 5072-5083. (11) Dunn, W. B.; Broadhurst, D.; Begley, P.; Zelena, E.; Francis-McIntyre, S.; Anderson, N.; Brown, M.; Knowles, J. D.; Halsall, A.; Haselden, J. N.; Nicholls, A. W.; Wilson, I. D.; Kell, D. B.; Goodacre, R.; Human Serum Metabolome, C. Nat. Protoc. 2011, 6, 1060-1083. (12) Li, Y.; Ruan, Q.; Li, Y. L.; Ye, G. Z.; Lu, X.; Lin, X. H.; Xu, G. W. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1255, 228-236. (13) Kamleh, M. A.; Ebbels, T. M.; Spagou, K.; Masson, P.; Want, E. J. Anal. Chem. 2012, 84, 2670-2677. (14) Li, J.; Hoene, M.; Zhao, X.; Chen, S.; Wei, H.; Haring, H. U.; Lin, X.; Zeng, Z.; Weigert, C.; Lehmann, R.; Xu, G. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 4651-4657. (15) Fages, A.; Pontoizeau, C.; Jobard, E.; Levy, P.; Bartosch, B.; Elena-Herrmann, B. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405, 8819-8827. (16) Wang, S. Y.; Kuo, C. H.; Tseng, Y. J. Anal. Chem. 2013, 85, 1037-1046. (17) Guidance for Industry Bioanalytical Method Validation; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for
Veterinary
Medicine
(CVM),
2001,
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm0701 07.pdf. (18) Yuan, Y.; Khatibisepehr, S.; Huang, B.; Li, Z. AICHE J. 2015, 61, 3232-3248. (19) Bretas, N. G.; Bretas, A. S. International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 2015, 73, 484-490. (20) Calleri, A.; Bono, A.; Bagnardi, V.; Quarna, J.; Mancuso, P.; Rabascio, C.; Dellapasqua, S.; Campagnoli, E.; Shaked, Y.; Goldhirsch, A.; Colleoni, M.; Bertolini, F. Clin. Cancer Res. 2009, 15, 7652-7657.
513
21
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Analytical Chemistry
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Page 22 of 29
Table 1. Percentages of features (POF) with RSDs within 10%, 15%, 20% and 30%, Average r and ED using 85% PCs in the PCA analysis of the five types of non-QC replicates (S1, S2, S3, S4 and S5)
Samples Method
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
Average distance Pearson correlation in PCA coefficient
POF with
G+S
ED 9.53
r 0.84
RSD