ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026
Optimizing multiomics sample preparation: comparative evaluation of extraction protocols for HepG2 cells.
Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multiomics approaches enable a comprehensive characterization of complex biological systems by simultaneously investigating multiple molecular layers. Generating multiple omics datasets from a single sample is crucial to minimize biological variability and ensure cross-layer consistency, which is critical for robust downstream data analysis. However, existing workflows often require adaptation to the specific experimental context and instrumental setup. This study systematically compared two established protocols for the simultaneous extraction of metabolites, lipids, and proteins from HepG2 cells: (i) a biphasic extraction with subsequent overnight protein digestion from the interphase pellet, and (ii) a monophasic extraction involving on-bead protein digestion. For the monophasic approach, we further investigated the effects of bead size and digestion conditions. Metabolomics samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry; lipidomics and proteomics samples were analyzed by nano-scale liquid chromatography coupled with ion mobility separation and high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry. Each method was evaluated in terms of total feature count, selectivity, reproducibility, handling complexity, and overall performance. While neither protocol was optimal across all criteria, the monophasic extraction using paramagnetic beads with shortened incubation time proved to be the most reproducible, efficient, and cost-effective solution for in-house multiomics workflows in HepG2 cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.