Normalization of Samples of Limited Amounts in Quantitative Metabolomics Using Liquid Chromatography Fluorescence Detection with Dansyl Labeling of Metabolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative metabolomics requires the analysis of the same or a very similar amount of samples in order to accurately determine the concentration differences of individual metabolites in comparative samples. Ideally, the total amount or concentration of metabolites in each sample is measured to normalize all the analyzed samples. In this work, we describe a very sensitive method to measure a subclass of metabolites as a surrogate quantifier for normalization of samples with limited amounts. This method starts with low-volume dansyl labeling of all metabolites containing a primary/secondary amine or phenol group in a sample to produce a final solution of 21 μL. The dansyl-labeled metabolites generate fluorescence signals at 520 nm with photoexcitation at 250 nm. To remove the interference of dansyl hydroxyl products (Dns-OH) formed from the labeling reagents used, a fast-gradient liquid chromatography separation is used to elute Dns-OH using aqueous solution, followed by organic solvent elution to produce a chromatographic peak of labeled metabolites, giving a measurement throughput of 6 min per sample. The integrated fluorescence signals of the peak are found to be related to the injection amount of the dansyl-labeled metabolites. A calibration curve using mixtures of dansyl-labeled amino acids is used to determine the total concentration of labeled metabolites in a sample. This concentration is used for normalization of samples in the range from 2 to 120 μM in 21 μL with only 1 μL consumed for fluorescence quantification (i.e., 2-120 pmol). We demonstrate the application of this sensitive sample normalization method in comparative metabolome analysis of human cancer cells, MCF-7 cells, treated with and without resveratrol, using a starting material of as low as 500 cells.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".