4.5 Article

Current challenges in metabolomics for diabetes research: a vital functional genomic tool or just a ploy for gaining funding?

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL GENOMICS
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 1-5

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/physiolgenomics.00009.2008

关键词

NMR spectroscopy; mass spectrometry; obesity; functional genomics

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council Funding Source: Medline
  2. British Heart Foundation Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [G0400192] Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [G0400192] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0600717B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Metabolomics aims to profile all the small molecule metabolites found within a cell, tissue, organ, or organism and use this information to understand a biological manipulation such as a drug intervention or a gene knockout. While neither mass spectrometry or NMR spectroscopy, the two most commonly used analytical tools in metabolomics, can provide a complete coverage of the metabolome, compared with other functional genomic tools for profiling biological moieties the approach is cheap and high throughput. In diabetes and obesity research this has provided the opportunity to assess large human populations or investigate a range of different tissues in animal studies both rapidly and cheaply. However, the approach has a number of major challenges, particularly with the interpretation of the data obtained. For example, some key pathways are better represented by high concentration metabolites inside the cell, and thus, the coverage of the metabolome may become biased towards these pathways (e. g., the TCA cycle, amino acid metabolism). There is also the challenge of statistically modeling datasets with large numbers of variables but relatively small sample sizes. This perspective discusses our own experience of some of the benefits and pitfalls with using metabolomics to understand diseases associated with type 2 diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据