Correction: GC × GC-TOFMS metabolomics analysis identifies elevated levels of plasma sugars and sugar alcohols in diabetic mellitus patients with kidney failure

Résumé fourni par la source

GC × GC-TOFMS metabolomics analysis identifies elevated levels of plasma sugars and sugar alcohols in diabetic mellitus patients with kidney failureJournal of Biological ChemistryVol. 298Issue 10PreviewTwo dimensional GC (GC × GC)–time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOFMS) has been used to improve accurate metabolite identification in the chemical industry, but this method has not been applied as readily in biomedical research. Here, we evaluated and validated the performance of high resolution GC × GC-TOFMS against that of GC-TOFMS for metabolomics analysis of two different plasma matrices, from healthy controls (CON) and diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with kidney failure (DM with KF). We found GC × GC-TOFMS outperformed traditional GC-TOFMS in terms of separation performance and metabolite coverage. Full-Text PDF Open Access The legend currently reads as: “Figure 2 Contour plots of the four subclasses of reference standards, including (A) ten sugar metabolites, (B) twenty amino acids, (C) eight fatty acids, and (D) nine sugar alcohols. The x- and y-axes represent the retention times in the first and second dimensions, respectively. The red-labeled metabolites indicate the co-eluted compounds.” And it should read: “Figure 2 Contour plots of the four subclasses of reference standards, including (A) nine sugar metabolites, (B) ten sugar alcohols, (C) nineteen amino acids, and (D) eight fatty acids. The x- and y-axes represent the retention times in the first and second dimensions, respectively. The red-labeled metabolites indicate the co-eluted compounds.” Thus, on page 3 of paper, in the sentence of “The standards included 9 sugar alcohols,10 sugars, 20 amino acids, and 8 free fatty acids” should read “The standards included 10 sugar alcohols, 9 sugars, 20 amino acids, and 8 free fatty acids.”

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.