Dataset Information

Dissemination and analysis of the quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices of LC-MS based untargeted metabolomics practitioners.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The metabolomics quality assurance and quality control consortium (mQACC) evolved from the recognized need for a community-wide consensus on improving and systematizing quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) practices for untargeted metabolomics.

Objectives

In this work, we sought to identify and share the common and divergent QA and QC practices amongst mQACC members and collaborators who use liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) in untargeted metabolomics.

Methods

All authors voluntarily participated in this collaborative research project by providing the details of and insights into the QA and QC practices used in their laboratories. This sharing was enabled via a six-page questionnaire composed of over 120 questions and comment fields which was developed as part of this work and has proved the basis for ongoing mQACC outreach.

Results

For QA, many laboratories reported documenting maintenance, calibration and tuning (82%); having established data storage and archival processes (71%); depositing data in public repositories (55%); having standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place for all laboratory processes (68%) and training staff on laboratory processes (55%). For QC, universal practices included using system suitability procedures (100%) and using a robust system of identification (Metabolomics Standards Initiative level 1 identification standards) for at least some of the detected compounds. Most laboratories used QC samples (>86%); used internal standards (91%); used a designated analytical acquisition template with randomized experimental samples (91%); and manually reviewed peak integration following data acquisition (86%). A minority of laboratories included technical replicates of experimental samples in their workflows (36%).

Conclusions

Although the 23 contributors were researchers with diverse and international backgrounds from academia, industry and government, they are not necessarily representative of the worldwide pool of practitioners due to the recruitment method for participants and its voluntary nature. However, both questionnaire and the findings presented here have already informed and led other data gathering efforts by mQACC at conferences and other outreach activities and will continue to evolve in order to guide discussions for recommendations of best practices within the community and to establish internationally agreed upon reporting standards. We very much welcome further feedback from readers of this article.

SUBMITTER: Evans AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7641040 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Untargeted metabolomics is an analytical approach with numerous applications serving as an effective metabolic phenotyping platform to characterize small molecules within a biological system. Data quality can be challenging to evaluate and demonstrate in metabolomics experiments. This has driven the use of pooled quality control (QC) samples for monitoring and, if necessary, correcting for analytical variance introduced during sample preparation and data acquisition stages. Described herein is a scoping literature review detailing the use of pooled QC samples in published untargeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based metabolomics studies. A literature query was performed, the list of papers was filtered, and suitable articles were randomly sampled. In total, 109 papers were each reviewed by at least five reviewers, answering predefined questions surrounding the use of pooled quality control samples. The results of the review indicate that use of pooled QC samples has been relatively widely adopted by the metabolomics community and that it is used at a similar frequency across biological taxa and sample types in both small- and large-scale studies. However, while many studies generated and analyzed pooled QC samples, relatively few reported the use of pooled QC samples to improve data quality. This demonstrates a clear opportunity for the field to more frequently utilize pooled QC samples for quality reporting, feature filtering, analytical drift correction, and metabolite annotation. Additionally, our survey approach enabled us to assess the ambiguity in the reporting of the methods used to describe the generation and use of pooled QC samples. This analysis indicates that many details of the QC framework are missing or unclear, limiting the reader's ability to determine which QC steps have been taken. Collectively, these results capture the current state of pooled QC sample usage and highlight existing strengths and deficiencies as they are applied in untargeted LC-MS metabolomics.

Project description:IntroductionThe quality of tuberculosis laboratory services in health facilities is a mandatory component of detecting active pulmonary TB cases and treatment follow-up. However, ensuring the quality of laboratory test results is a concern. This study aimed to assess the quality assurance practices in the tuberculosis diagnostic health facilities of Ethiopia.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from October 2018 to March 2019 at nine governmental TB-culture laboratories and 34 randomly selected GeneXpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert® MTB/RIF) testing health facilities in Ethiopia. Participating health facilities were interviewed and laboratory documents and records present since 2017 were observed. Prior to the data collection, training was given to the data collectors. Descriptive statistics were used to produce results and were presented with tables and graphs.ResultsFrom a total of 34 Xpert® MTB/RIF testing laboratories, 50% run Internal Quality Control (IQC) for Acid-Fast Bacillus (AFB) Microscopy and 67.6% had lot-to-lot verification of staining reagents. For the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay, a lot-to-lot verification of cartridge and method validation was performed only in 8.8%and 20.6% of Xpert® MTB/RIF testing laboratories respectively. All TB-culture laboratories included in the study ran negative control (start and end IQC) during TB-culture sample processing and performed lot-to-lot verification for Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) in 88.9% of TB-culture laboratories. External Quality Assessment (EQA) Proficiency Testing (PT) for AFB microscopy is practiced in 79.4% Xpert® MTB/RIF testing laboratories and 100.0% for the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay. TB-Culture PT participation practice among TB-culture laboratories was 88.9%. A major challenge for health facilities during PT participation was the AFB PT-sample transportation delay (40.7%) and the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay EQA-PT feedback missing (38.2%).ConclusionThis assessment reveals that IQC for AFB microscopy, lot-to-lot verification, method validation, and equipment calibration were not well-practiced. The majority of TB diagnostic health facility laboratories had EQA-PT participation practice, but a significant gap in PT-sample transportation and missing feedback was identified.