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.
Keywords: Ionization efficiency; LC–MS; Mass spectrometry; Matrix effect; Metabolomics.