Chapter 2 Experimental design(DoE)

Before you perform any metabolomics experiment, a clean and meaningful experimental design is the best start. Depending on different research purposes, experimental design can be classified into homogeneity and heterogeneity study. Technique such as isotope labeled media will not be discussed in this chapter while this paper(Jang, Chen, and Rabinowitz 2018) could be a good start.

2.1 Homogeneity study

In homogeneity study, the research purpose is about method validation in most cases. Pooled sample made from multiple samples or technical replicates from same population will be used. Variances within the samples should be attributed to factors other than the samples themselves. For example, we want to know if sample injection order will affect the intensities of the unknown peaks, one pooled sample or technical replicates samples should be used.

Another experimental design for homogeneity study will use biological replicates to find the common features from a group of samples. Biological replicates mean samples from same population with same biological process. For example, we wanted to know metabolites profiles of a certain species and we could collected lots of the individual samples from the population. Then only the peaks/compounds appeared in all samples will be used to describe the metabolites profiles of this species. Technical replicates could also be used with biological replicates.

2.2 Heterogeneity study

In heterogeneity study, the research purpose is to find the differences among samples. You need at least a baseline to perform the comparison. Such baseline could be generated by random process, control samples or background knowledge. For example, outlier detection can be performed to find abnormal samples in unsupervised manners. Distribution or spatial analysis could be used to find geological relationship of known and unknown compounds. Temporal trend of metabolites profile could be found by time series or cohort studies. Clinical trial or random control trial is also an important class of heterogeneity studies. In this cases, you need at least two groups: treated group and control group. Also you could treat this group information as the one primary variable or primary variables to be explored for certain research purposes. In the following discussion about experimental design, we will use random control trail as model to discuss important issues.

2.3 Power analysis

Supposing we have control and treated groups, the numbers of samples in each group should be carefully calculated.For each metabolite, such comparison could be treated as one t-test. You need to perform a Power analysis to get the numbers. For example, we have two groups of samples with 10 samples in each group. Then we set the power at 0.9, which means one minus Type II error probability, the standard deviation at 1 and the significance level (Type 1 error probability) at 0.05. Then we will get the meaningful delta between the two groups should be higher than 1.53367 under this experiment design. Also we could set the delta to get the minimized numbers of the samples in each group. To get those data such as the standard deviation or delta for power analysis, you need to perform preliminary or pilot experiments.

power.t.test(n=10,sd=1,sig.level = 0.05,power = 0.9)
## 
##      Two-sample t test power calculation 
## 
##               n = 10
##           delta = 1.53367
##              sd = 1
##       sig.level = 0.05
##           power = 0.9
##     alternative = two.sided
## 
## NOTE: n is number in *each* group
power.t.test(delta = 5,sd=1,sig.level = 0.05,power = 0.9)
## 
##      Two-sample t test power calculation 
## 
##               n = 2.328877
##           delta = 5
##              sd = 1
##       sig.level = 0.05
##           power = 0.9
##     alternative = two.sided
## 
## NOTE: n is number in *each* group

However, since sometimes we could not perform preliminary experiment, we could directly compute the power based on false discovery rate control. If the power is lower than certain value, say 0.8, we just exclude this peak as significant features.

In this review (Oberg and Vitek 2009), author suggest to estimate an average \(\alpha\) according to this equation (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) and then use normal way to calculate the sample numbers:

\[ \alpha_{ave} \leq (1-\beta_{ave})\cdot q\frac{1}{1+(1-q)\cdot m_0/m_1} \]

Other study (Blaise et al. 2016) show a method based on simulation to estimate the sample size. They used BY correction to limit the influences from correlations. Other investigation could be found here(Saccenti and Timmerman 2016; Blaise 2013). However, the nature of omics study make the power analysis hard to use one number for all metabolites and all the methods are trying to find a balance to represent more peaks with least samples.

2.4 Optimization

One experiment can contain lots of factors with different levels and only one set of parameters for different factors will show the best sensitivity or reproducibility for certain study. To find this set of parameters, Plackett-Burman Design (PBD), Response Surface Methodology (RSM), Central Composite Design (CCD), and Taguchi methods could be used to optimize the parameters for metabolomics study. The target could be the quality of peaks, the numbers of peaks, the stability of peaks intensity, and/or the statistics of the combination of those targets. You could check those paper for details(Jacyna, Kordalewska, and Markuszewski 2019; Box, Hunter, and Hunter 2005).

2.5 Pooled QC

Pooled QC samples are unique and very important for metabolomics study. Every 10 or 20 samples, a pooled sample from all samples and blank sample in one study should be injected as quality control samples. Pooled QC samples contain the changes during the instrumental analysis and blank samples could tell where the variances come from. Meanwhile the cap of sequence should old the column with pooled QC samples. The injection sequence should be randomized. Those papers(Phapale et al. 2020; Dudzik et al. 2018; Dunn et al. 2012; Broadhurst et al. 2018; Corey D. Broeckling et al. 2023; González-Domínguez et al. 2024) should be read for details.

If there are other co-factors, a linear model or randomizing would be applied to eliminate their influences. You need to record the values of those co-factors for further data analysis. Common co-factors in metabolomics studies are age, gender, location, etc.

If you need data correction, some background or calibration samples are required. However, control samples could also be used for data correction in certain DoE.

Another important factors are instrumentals. High-resolution mass spectrum is always preferred. As shown in Lukas’s study (Najdekr et al. 2016):

the most effective mass resolving powers for profiling analyses of metabolite rich biofluids on the Orbitrap Elite were around 60000-120000 fwhm to retrieve the highest amount of information. The region between 400-800 m/z was influenced the most by resolution.

However, elimination of peaks with high RSD% within group were always omitted by most study. Based on pre-experiment, you could get a description of RSD% distribution and set cut-off to use stable peaks for further data analysis. To my knowledge, 30% is suitable considering the batch effects.

Adding certified reference material or standard reference material will help to evaluate the quality large scale data collocation or important metabolites(Wise 2022; Wright, Beach, and McCarron 2022).

For quality control in long term, ScreenDB provide a data analysis strategy for HRMS data founded on structured query language database archiving(Mardal et al. 2023).

AVIR develops a computational solution to automatically recognize metabolic features with computational variation in a metabolomics data set(Z. Zhang et al. 2024).

References

Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. “Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57 (1): 289–300. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101.
Blaise, Benjamin J. 2013. “Data-Driven Sample Size Determination for Metabolic Phenotyping Studies.” Analytical Chemistry 85 (19): 8943–50. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac4022314.
Blaise, Benjamin J., Gonçalo Correia, Adrienne Tin, J. Hunter Young, Anne-Claire Vergnaud, Matthew Lewis, Jake T. M. Pearce, et al. 2016. “Power Analysis and Sample Size Determination in Metabolic Phenotyping.” Analytical Chemistry 88 (10): 5179–88. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b00188.
Box, George E. P., J. Stuart Hunter, and William G. Hunter. 2005. Statistics for Experimenters. Wiley-Interscience.
Broadhurst, David, Royston Goodacre, Stacey N. Reinke, Julia Kuligowski, Ian D. Wilson, Matthew R. Lewis, and Warwick B. Dunn. 2018. “Guidelines and Considerations for the Use of System Suitability and Quality Control Samples in Mass Spectrometry Assays Applied in Untargeted Clinical Metabolomic Studies.” Metabolomics 14 (6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-018-1367-3.
Broeckling, Corey D., Richard D. Beger, Leo L. Cheng, Raquel Cumeras, Daniel J. Cuthbertson, Surendra Dasari, W. Clay Davis, et al. 2023. “Current Practices in LC-MS Untargeted Metabolomics: A Scoping Review on the Use of Pooled Quality Control Samples.” Analytical Chemistry 95 (51): 18645–54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c02924.
Choi, Meena, Ching-Yun Chang, Timothy Clough, Daniel Broudy, Trevor Killeen, Brendan MacLean, and Olga Vitek. 2014. MSstats: An R Package for Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomic Experiments.” Bioinformatics 30 (17): 2524–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu305.
Dudzik, Danuta, Cecilia Barbas-Bernardos, Antonia García, and Coral Barbas. 2018. “Quality Assurance Procedures for Mass Spectrometry Untargeted Metabolomics. A Review.” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, Review issue 2017, 147 (January): 149–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2017.07.044.
Dunn, Warwick B, Ian D Wilson, Andrew W Nicholls, and David Broadhurst. 2012. “The Importance of Experimental Design and QC Samples in Large-Scale and MS-driven Untargeted Metabolomic Studies of Humans.” Bioanalysis 4 (18): 2249–64. https://doi.org/10.4155/bio.12.204.
González-Domínguez, Álvaro, Núria Estanyol-Torres, Carl Brunius, Rikard Landberg, and Raúl González-Domínguez. 2024. QComics: Recommendations and Guidelines for Robust, Easily Implementable and Reportable Quality Control of Metabolomics Data.” Analytical Chemistry 96 (3): 1064–72. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c03660.
Jacyna, Julia, Marta Kordalewska, and Michał J. Markuszewski. 2019. “Design of Experiments in Metabolomics-Related Studies: An Overview.” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 164 (February): 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpba.2018.11.027.
Jang, Cholsoon, Li Chen, and Joshua D. Rabinowitz. 2018. “Metabolomics and Isotope Tracing.” Cell 173 (4): 822–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.055.
Mardal, Marie, Petur W. Dalsgaard, Brian S. Rasmussen, Kristian Linnet, and Christian B. Mollerup. 2023. “Scalable Analysis of Untargeted LC-HRMS Data by Means of SQL Database Archiving.” Analytical Chemistry, February. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03769.
Najdekr, Lukáš, David Friedecký, Ralf Tautenhahn, Tomáš Pluskal, Junhua Wang, Yingying Huang, and Tomáš Adam. 2016. “Influence of Mass Resolving Power in Orbital Ion-Trap Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics.” Analytical Chemistry 88 (23): 11429–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6b02319.
Nyamundanda, Gift, Isobel Claire Gormley, Yue Fan, William M. Gallagher, and Lorraine Brennan. 2013. MetSizeR: Selecting the Optimal Sample Size for Metabolomic Studies Using an Analysis Based Approach.” BMC Bioinformatics 14: 338. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-338.
Oberg, Ann L., and Olga Vitek. 2009. “Statistical Design of Quantitative Mass Spectrometry-Based Proteomic Experiments.” Journal of Proteome Research 8 (5): 2144–56. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr8010099.
Phapale, Prasad, Vineeta Rai, Ashok Kumar Mohanty, and Sanjeeva Srivastava. 2020. “Untargeted Metabolomics Workshop Report: Quality Control Considerations from Sample Preparation to Data Analysis.” Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry 31 (9): 2006–10. https://doi.org/10.1021/jasms.0c00224.
Saccenti, Edoardo, and Marieke E. Timmerman. 2016. “Approaches to Sample Size Determination for Multivariate Data: Applications to PCA and PLS-DA of Omics Data.” Journal of Proteome Research 15 (8): 2379–93. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.5b01029.
Wise, Stephen A. 2022. “What If Using Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) Was a Requirement to Publish in Analytical/Bioanalytical Chemistry Journals?” Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 414 (24): 7015–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-022-04163-8.
Wright, Elliott J., Daniel G. Beach, and Pearse McCarron. 2022. “Non-Target Analysis and Stability Assessment of Reference Materials Using Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry.” Analytica Chimica Acta 1201 (April): 339622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2022.339622.
Yu, Zhihao, Haylea C. Miller, Geoffrey J. Puzon, and Brian H. Clowers. 2017. “Development of Untargeted Metabolomics Methods for the Rapid Detection of Pathogenic Naegleria Fowleri.” Environmental Science & Technology 51 (8): 4210–19. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b05969.
Zhang, Zixuan, Huaxu Yu, Ethan Wong-Ma, Pouneh Dokouhaki, Ahmed Mostafa, Jay S. Shavadia, Fang Wu, and Tao Huan. 2024. “Reducing Quantitative Uncertainty Caused by Data Processing in Untargeted Metabolomics.” Analytical Chemistry 96 (9): 3727–32. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.3c04046.