Cross-Platform Comparison of Amino Acid Metabolic Profiling in Three Model Organisms Used in Environmental Metabolomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental metabolomics is a promising approach to study pollutant impacts to target organisms in both terrestrial and aquatic environments. To this end, both nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)- and mass spectrometry (MS)-based methods are used to profile amino acids in different environmental metabolomic studies. However, these two methods have not been compared directly which is an important consideration for broader comparisons in the environmental metabolomics field. We compared the quantification of 18 amino acids in the tissue extracts of Daphnia magna, a common model organism used in both ecotoxicology and ecology, using both 1H NMR spectroscopy and liquid chromatography with tandem MS (LC-MS/MS). 1H NMR quantification of amino acids agreed with the LC-MS/MS quantification for 17 of 18 amino acids measured. We also tested both quantitative methods in a D. magna sub-lethal exposure study to copper and lithium. Again, both NMR and LC-MS/MS measurements showed agreement. We extended our analyses with extracts from the earthworm Eisenia fetida and the plant model Nicotiana tabacum. The concentrations of amino acids by both 1H NMR and LC-MS/MS, agreed and demonstrated the robustness of both techniques for quantitative metabolomics. These findings demonstrate the compatibility of these two analytical platforms for amino acid profiling in environmentally relevant model organisms and emphasizes that data from either method is robust for comparisons across studies to further build the knowledge base related to pollutant exposure impacts and toxic responses of diverse environmental organisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".