Data and metadata for "Signal, noise, and sampling: How pool size and replication shape metabolomic inference"

Résumé fourni par la source

This repository contains the raw (pre-processing) metabolite abundance data and sample metadata supporting the manuscript "Signal, noise, and sampling: How pool size and replication shape metabolomic inference" (Hubert & Phillips, submitted to G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics). The study evaluates how pool size (5, 50, or 100 individuals per sample) and biological replication jointly affect the detection, stability, and interpretation of metabolomic signals, using two complementary experiments in Drosophila melanogaster. Metabolite abundance was measured by LC-MS/MS across four chromatography/ionization panels (C18 positive, C18 negative, HILIC positive, HILIC negative). Four files are included: MetabolomicSampling_Experiment_1_Data_Raw.csv, raw metabolite peak areas for Experiment 1 (genetic background and age comparison: inbred vs. outbred populations), with metabolite identity, chemical formula, metabolic category, HMDB ID, chromatography column, and ionization mode, alongside per-sample abundance values and pooled QC samples. MetabolomicSampling_Experiment_1_Meta.csv, sample metadata for Experiment 1, including strain, population, pool size, and age for each sample. MetabolomicSampling_Experiment_2_Data_Raw.csv, raw metabolite peak areas for Experiment 2 (dietary perturbation comparison: standard vs. high-sugar diet), in the same format as above. MetabolomicSampling_Experiment_2_Meta.csv, sample metadata for Experiment 2, including run order, diet, population, and pool size for each sample. These are peak-integrated abundance values as exported from the LC-MS/MS data processing pipeline; raw instrument acquisition files are not included. Analysis code used to process, normalize, and model these data is available in the accompanying GitHub repository: https://github.com/hubertdl/Metabolomics_sampling_project_D.melanogaster

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