Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Since the early 2000s, metabolomics has grown rapidly, becoming integral to fields like life sciences, health, and environmental research. This expansion has led to the formation of national and international societies, such as Germany’s DGMet, to tackle emerging challenges. One of DGMet’s goals is to improve measurement quality by assessing community needs for harmonization and standardization. A recent survey within the German-speaking community aimed to identify current practices and gaps in the use of chemical standards and reference materials, to guide future standardization efforts and collaborative initiatives.</p> Methods <p>An online survey was conducted between June 2023 and April 2024. The survey consisted of 38 key questions and was open to research institutions from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.</p> Results <p>The survey was accessed by 68 laboratories, with 23 institutes providing complete or partial responses (34% response rate), which is comparable to rates reported in similar surveys within the metabolomics and lipidomics communities. Respondents were mainly experienced researchers from Germany, focusing mainly on health-related (“red”) metabolomics, as indicated by 78% of the respondents, followed by microbial (“grey”, 48%) and plant (“green”, 39%) metabolomics (multiple answers possible). The use of targeted methods was reported more frequently (91%) than that of non-targeted methods (78%), whereas metabolite fractions studied were equally split between polar, midpolar and lipid fractions (83% each). Human (74%), mouse (61%) and Arabidopsis (30%) were the most frequently studied organisms. Most participants used synthetic chemical standards for instrument qualification (83%), calibration (78%), and metabolite identification (74%), while matrix reference materials were mainly applied for quality control (52%) and method validation (44%). There was a strong demand for more standards, especially for metabolite identification and quantification, with cost being a major barrier, particularly for isotopically labelled standards and certified reference materials.</p> Conclusions <p>Valuable insights into the use of standards and reference materials within the German-speaking metabolomics community were obtained. Moving forward, the community should address critical gaps in metabolomics standardization. To achieve this, it must share its knowledge, articulate its needs clearly, and actively engage in joint efforts with national metrology institutes and international standardization initiatives.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analytical practices, use and needs of standard and reference materials in the German-speaking metabolomics community: results of an online survey

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月15日

查看全文
  • Carsten Jaeger,
  • Jutta Lintelmann,
  • Raimo Franke,
  • Anna Artati,
  • Alexander Cecil,
  • Frank Broda,
  • Frank Klawonn,
  • Alexander Erban,
  • Joachim Kopka,
  • Beate Fuchs,
  • Ulf Sommer,
  • Meina Neumann-Schaal,
  • Gavin O’Connor

摘要

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, metabolomics has grown rapidly, becoming integral to fields like life sciences, health, and environmental research. This expansion has led to the formation of national and international societies, such as Germany’s DGMet, to tackle emerging challenges. One of DGMet’s goals is to improve measurement quality by assessing community needs for harmonization and standardization. A recent survey within the German-speaking community aimed to identify current practices and gaps in the use of chemical standards and reference materials, to guide future standardization efforts and collaborative initiatives.

Methods

An online survey was conducted between June 2023 and April 2024. The survey consisted of 38 key questions and was open to research institutions from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.

Results

The survey was accessed by 68 laboratories, with 23 institutes providing complete or partial responses (34% response rate), which is comparable to rates reported in similar surveys within the metabolomics and lipidomics communities. Respondents were mainly experienced researchers from Germany, focusing mainly on health-related (“red”) metabolomics, as indicated by 78% of the respondents, followed by microbial (“grey”, 48%) and plant (“green”, 39%) metabolomics (multiple answers possible). The use of targeted methods was reported more frequently (91%) than that of non-targeted methods (78%), whereas metabolite fractions studied were equally split between polar, midpolar and lipid fractions (83% each). Human (74%), mouse (61%) and Arabidopsis (30%) were the most frequently studied organisms. Most participants used synthetic chemical standards for instrument qualification (83%), calibration (78%), and metabolite identification (74%), while matrix reference materials were mainly applied for quality control (52%) and method validation (44%). There was a strong demand for more standards, especially for metabolite identification and quantification, with cost being a major barrier, particularly for isotopically labelled standards and certified reference materials.

Conclusions

Valuable insights into the use of standards and reference materials within the German-speaking metabolomics community were obtained. Moving forward, the community should address critical gaps in metabolomics standardization. To achieve this, it must share its knowledge, articulate its needs clearly, and actively engage in joint efforts with national metrology institutes and international standardization initiatives.