Abstract Background The aim of metabolic phenotyping (metabotyping) is to discover and identify metabolites (including lipids) that can be used to characterize biological samples and differentiate between different physiological states. The identification of the metabolites responsible for this differentiation is essential if mechanistic understanding is to be obtained. Confident metabolite identification arguably represents the most important outcome of untargeted metabolomics studies but currently the standards used for metabolite identification reported in many publications do not strictly follow the various published guidelines and thus these identifications lack sufficient proof. Aim of review In this perspective we define problems that currently plague the field of metabolite identification using MS-based techniques, particularly LC-MS, in untargeted metabolic phenotyping. Despite considerable efforts by the community (researchers, instrument manufacturers, software, and database developers) this continues to be a contentious and error-prone step in the metabolomics workflow. The majority of publications provide only sparse data on the evidence for metabolic markers “identified” and we have observed an alarming increase in the frequency of erroneous metabolite identifications. Here, we describe the problem and provide several illustrative case studies. Our goal is to raise awareness and highlight the issue of poor metabolite identification, since it is also increasingly apparent that these errors are not always recognised during the reviewing process, such that papers with potentially erroneous metabolite identities reach publication. Key scientific concepts of review Poor metabolite identification potentially represents an existential threat to the credibility of untargeted “discovery” metabolomics and can pollute the literature. Here we describe the aetiology of the problem and explain how and why this issue affects the field. We argue that coordinated action is required by researchers, database managers, scientific societies and the reviewers, editors and publishers of scientific journals to both acknowledge and address this important problem.
Theodoridis et al. (Mon,) studied this question.