Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41258943›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2026

Optimizing multiomics sample preparation: comparative evaluation of extraction protocols for HepG2 cells.

Tilman F Arnst, Selina Hemmer, Claudia Fecher-Trost, Lea Wagmann, Markus R Meyer

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Tilman F ArnstDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), PharmaScienceHub (PSH), Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Selina HemmerDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), PharmaScienceHub (PSH), Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Claudia Fecher-TrostDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), PharmaScienceHub (PSH), Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Lea WagmannDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), PharmaScienceHub (PSH), Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Markus R MeyerDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Toxicology and Pharmacology, Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Center for Molecular Signaling (PZMS), PharmaScienceHub (PSH), Saarland University, Homburg, Germany. markus.meyer@uni-saarland.de.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft INST 256/565-1 FUGG
6 · The paper itself

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

LipidsMetabolomicsProteinsProteomicsChromatography, LiquidHep G2 CellsHumansMultiomicsReproducibility of ResultsTandem Mass SpectrometryLipidsProteinsHepG2 cellsMass spectrometryMetabolomicsMultiomicsProteomicsSample preparation

Identifiers

PMID41258943
PMCPMC12890986

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.