| 1. |
- Alseekh, Saleh, et al.
(författare)
-
Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics: a guide for annotation, quantification and best reporting practices
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Methods. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1548-7091 .- 1548-7105. ; 18:7, s. 747-756
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- This Perspective, from a large group of metabolomics experts, provides best practices and simplified reporting guidelines for practitioners of liquid chromatography- and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based metabolomics. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomics approaches can enable detection and quantification of many thousands of metabolite features simultaneously. However, compound identification and reliable quantification are greatly complicated owing to the chemical complexity and dynamic range of the metabolome. Simultaneous quantification of many metabolites within complex mixtures can additionally be complicated by ion suppression, fragmentation and the presence of isomers. Here we present guidelines covering sample preparation, replication and randomization, quantification, recovery and recombination, ion suppression and peak misidentification, as a means to enable high-quality reporting of liquid chromatography- and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry-based metabolomics-derived data.
|
|
| 2. |
- Van Spelde, Anne-Marijn, et al.
(författare)
-
Approaches to osteoporosis in paleopathology : How did methodology shape bone loss research
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Paleopathology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-9817 .- 1879-9825. ; 33, s. 245-257
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: This paper will review how different methods employed to study bone loss in the past were used to explore different questions and aspects of bone loss, how methodology has changed over time, and how these different approaches have informed our understanding of bone loss in the past.Materials and methods: A review and discussion is conducted on research protocols and results of 84 paleopathology publications on bone loss in archaeological skeletal collections published between 1969 and 2021.Conclusions: The variety in research protocols confounds accurate meta-analysis of previously published research; however, more recent publications incorporate a combination of bone mass and bone quality based methods. Biased sample selection has resulted in a predominance of European and Medieval publications, limiting more general observations on bone loss in the past. Collection of dietary or paleopathological covariables is underemployed in the effort to interpret bone loss patterns.Significance: Paleopathology publications have demonstrated differences in bone loss between distinct archaeological populations, between sex and age groups, and have suggested factors underlying observed differences. However, a lack of a gold standard has encouraged the use of a wide range of methods. Understanding how this array of methods effects results is crucial in contextualizing our knowledge of bone loss in the past.Limitations: The development of a research protocol is also influenced by available expertise, available equipment, restrictions imposed by the curator, and site-specific taphonomic aspects. These factors will likely continue to cause (minor) biases even if a best practice can be established.Suggestions for future research: Greater effort to develop uniform terminology and operational definitions of osteoporosis in skeletal remains, as well as the expansion of time scale and geographical areas studied. The Next Generation Sequencing revolution has also opened up the possibility of ancient DNA analyses to study genetic predisposition to bone loss in the past.
|
|
