Evaluation of different stool extraction methods for metabolomics measurements in human faecal samples
Open Access
- 2 July 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
- Vol. 4 (2), 374-384
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000202
Abstract
Background Metabolomics analysis of human stool samples is of great interest for a broad range of applications in biomedical research including early detection of colorectal neoplasms. However, due to the complexity of metabolites there is no consensus on how to process samples for stool metabolomics measurements to obtain a broad coverage of hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances. Methods We used frozen stool samples (50 mg) from healthy study participants. Stool samples were processed after thawing using eight different processing protocols and different solvents (solvents such as phosphate-buffered saline, isopropanol, methanol, ethanol, acetonitrile and solvent mixtures with or without following evaporation and concentration steps). Metabolites were measured afterwards using the MxP Quant 500 kit (Biocrates). The best performing protocol was subsequently applied to compare stool samples of participants with different dietary habits. Results In this study, we were able to determine up to 340 metabolites of various chemical classes extracted from stool samples of healthy study participants with eight different protocols. Polar metabolites such as amino acids could be measured with each method while other metabolite classes, particular lipid species (better with isopropanol and ethanol or methanol following a drying step), are more dependent on the solvent or combination of solvents used. Only a small number of triglycerides or acylcarnitines were detected in human faeces. Extraction efficiency was higher for protocols using isopropanol (131 metabolites>limit of detection (LOD)) or those using ethanol or methanol and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) including an evaporation and concentration step (303 and 342 metabolites>LOD, respectively) than for other protocols. We detected significant faecal metabolite differences between vegetarians, semivegetarians and non-vegetarians. Conclusion For the evaluation of metabolites in faecal samples, we found protocols using solvents like isopropanol and those using ethanol or methanol, and MTBE including an evaporation and concentration step to be superior regarding the number of detected metabolites of different chemical classes over others tested in this study.Keywords
This publication has 30 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fecal Metabolites As Non-Invasive Biomarkers of Gut DiseasesActa Naturae, 2020
- The potential of nanoflow liquid chromatography-nano electrospray ionisation-mass spectrometry for global profiling the faecal metabolomeJournal of Chromatography A, 2019
- Stool Microbiota Composition Differs in Patients with Stomach, Colon, and Rectal NeoplasmsDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2018
- NMR-based fecal metabolomics fingerprinting as predictors of earlier diagnosis in patients with colorectal cancerOncotarget, 2016
- 1H NMR Spectroscopy of Fecal Extracts Enables Detection of Advanced Colorectal NeoplasiaJournal of Proteome Research, 2015
- The Characterization of Feces and Urine: A Review of the Literature to Inform Advanced Treatment TechnologyCritical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2015
- The gut microbiota, bacterial metabolites and colorectal cancerNature Reviews Microbiology, 2014
- Non-invasive fecal metabonomic detection of colorectal cancerCancer Biology & Therapy, 2014
- Stool Microbiome and Metabolome Differences between Colorectal Cancer Patients and Healthy AdultsPLOS ONE, 2013
- Detecting colorectal cancer by 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of fecal extractsNMR in Biomedicine, 2009