Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia: Metabolic Signatures, Analytical Strategies, and Clinical Translation

Abstract

This comprehensive review synthesizes current evidence from lipidomics studies on the complex interplay between diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA). Utilizing ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS), researchers have identified distinct lipidomic signatures that distinguish patients with comorbid conditions from those with DM alone and healthy controls. Key findings include significant dysregulation of glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways, with upregulated triglycerides (TGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and phosphatidylcholines (PCs) as hallmark features. This article details methodological considerations for untargeted lipidomics, optimization strategies for sample preparation and analysis, and validation approaches through targeted methodologies. For researchers and drug development professionals, we provide critical insights into potential lipid biomarkers for early risk stratification and novel therapeutic targets, bridging fundamental discovery with clinical application in metabolic disease research.

Decoding the Lipidome: Signature Alterations in Diabetes and Hyperuricemia

Global Lipidomic Profiling Reveals Distinct Patterns in DM-HUA Comorbidity

Global lipidomic profiling represents a powerful tool for elucidating the complex metabolic disturbances underlying disease comorbidities. This technical guide examines the distinct lipidomic signatures characterizing the coexistence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA), a clinically significant comorbidity with growing prevalence. Through plasma untargeted lipidomics, researchers have identified specific lipid metabolites and pathways that are uniquely dysregulated in DM-HUA coexistence compared to either condition alone. This whitepaper provides detailed methodological frameworks for conducting such analyses, presents structured quantitative data, and explores the biological implications of these findings for diagnostic biomarker discovery and therapeutic development, framed within the broader context of metabolic disease research.

The integration of lipidomics into metabolic disease research has revolutionized our understanding of pathophysiology by providing comprehensive profiles of lipid species that serve as both biomarkers and active mediators of disease processes. Diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA) frequently coexist, with studies indicating that diabetic populations have a higher prevalence of HUA than non-diabetic populations, and each 1 mg/dL increase in serum uric acid is associated with a 17% increased risk of diabetes [1]. Both conditions are characterized by underlying metabolic disturbances, yet their synergistic impact on lipid metabolism remains incompletely understood. Global lipidomic profiling enables researchers to move beyond conventional lipid panels to characterize hundreds of individual lipid species simultaneously, capturing the complexity of lipid dysregulation in comorbid states.

The pathophysiological interplay between DM and HUA extends beyond their shared risk factors. Disordered lipid metabolism represents a potential mechanistic link between these conditions, with specific lipid classes influencing insulin sensitivity, β-cell function, and uric acid transport. Lipidomics, a specialized branch of metabolomics, provides the analytical framework to characterize these alterations systematically, identifying not only individual lipid biomarkers but also dysregulated metabolic pathways that may offer therapeutic targets. For drug development professionals, these lipidomic signatures offer potential for both patient stratification and targeted intervention strategies in the heterogeneous landscape of metabolic diseases.

Methodological Framework for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Sample Preparation and Quality Control

Robust sample preparation is fundamental to reliable lipidomic profiling. The following protocol, adapted from studies of DM-HUA cohorts, ensures comprehensive lipid extraction while maintaining analytical reproducibility [1]:

• Sample Collection: Collect fasting blood samples (typically 5 mL) in appropriate anticoagulant tubes. Centrifuge at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma. Aliquot supernatant (0.2 mL) into cryovials and store immediately at -80°C to prevent lipid degradation.

• Lipid Extraction: Thaw plasma samples on ice. Combine 100μL plasma with 200μL 4°C water. Add 240μL pre-cooled methanol and vortex mix. Add 800μL methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), sonicate in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes, and let stand at room temperature for 30 minutes. Centrifuge at 14,000 g for 15 minutes at 10°C. Collect the upper organic phase and dry under a nitrogen stream. Reconstitute residue in 100μL isopropanol for analysis.

• Quality Control: Prepare pooled quality control (QC) samples by combining equal aliquots from all samples. Insert QC samples randomly throughout the analytical sequence to monitor instrument stability and reproducibility. Include procedural blanks to identify contamination.

Instrumental Analysis Using UHPLC-MS/MS

Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) represents the gold standard for untargeted lipidomics, providing high sensitivity, resolution, and broad dynamic range [1] [2].

Table 1: UHPLC-MS/MS Instrumental Conditions for Lipidomic Profiling

Parameter	Specification	Purpose
Chromatography
Column	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) or Kinetex C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 2.6 μm)	Lipid separation
Mobile Phase A	10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:water	Hydrophilic interaction
Mobile Phase B	10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:isopropanol	Hydrophobic interaction
Gradient	Optimized binary gradient over 15-20 minutes	Comprehensive elution
Mass Spectrometry
Ionization	Electrospray ionization (ESI)	Lipid ionization
Polarity Switching	Positive and negative ion modes	Comprehensive detection
Mass Analyzer	Triple quadrupole or high-resolution MS	Accurate mass measurement
Scan Modes	Full scan, data-dependent MS/MS	Lipid identification

Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

Raw mass spectrometry data requires sophisticated processing to extract meaningful biological information:

• Lipid Identification: Process raw data using software such as LipidSearch (Thermo Fisher Scientific) or similar platforms. Identify lipids by matching MS/MS spectra against reference libraries (e.g., LIPID MAPS, HMDB). A typical analysis should identify 1,000-1,500 lipid molecules across 20-30 subclasses [1] [3].

• Multivariate Statistics: Apply principal component analysis (PCA) to assess overall data structure and identify outliers. Use orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) to maximize separation between experimental groups and identify lipids contributing most to variance.

• Differential Analysis: Identify significantly altered lipids using appropriate statistical tests (Student's t-test, ANOVA) with false discovery rate (FDR) correction for multiple comparisons. Apply fold-change thresholds (typically ≥1.5 or ≤0.67) to identify biologically relevant changes.

• Pathway Analysis: Input significantly altered lipids into pathway analysis platforms (e.g., MetaboAnalyst 5.0) to identify enriched metabolic pathways based on impact value and statistical significance [1].

Lipidomic Alterations in DM-HUA Comorbidity

Distinct Lipid Signatures

Comparative lipidomic profiling of DM-HUA patients versus those with DM alone or healthy controls reveals specific alterations in the plasma lipidome. A recent study identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses, with multivariate analyses showing clear separation between these groups [1].

Table 2: Significantly Altered Lipid Classes in DM-HUA Comorbidity

Lipid Class	Change in DM-HUA vs Control	Representative Lipids	Biological Implications
Triglycerides (TGs)	Significantly upregulated	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) and 12 other TGs	Impaired lipid storage & energy metabolism
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	Significantly upregulated	PE(18:0/20:4) and 9 other PEs	Membrane fluidity & signaling disruption
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	Significantly upregulated	PC(36:1) and 6 other PCs	Altered phospholipid metabolism
Phosphatidylinositols (PIs)	Downregulated	Not specified	Disturbed intracellular signaling
Sphingomyelins (SMs)	Upregulated in disease states	Multiple SMs	Ceramide pathway activation

The DM-HUA comorbidity demonstrates a unique lipidomic signature characterized by the upregulation of specific triglycerides (TGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and phosphatidylcholines (PCs), along with downregulation of phosphatidylinositols (PIs). This pattern differs from those observed in isolated DM or HUA, suggesting synergistic metabolic disturbances in the comorbid state [1].

Dysregulated Metabolic Pathways

Pathway analysis of differential lipids in DM-HUA patients reveals enrichment in several key metabolic pathways, with glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism emerging as the most significantly perturbed [1]. These pathways play fundamental roles in membrane integrity, energy storage, and cell signaling, with disruptions potentially contributing to the pathophysiology of both DM and HUA.

The following diagram illustrates the key lipid metabolic pathways dysregulated in DM-HUA comorbidity:

The diagram illustrates how glycerolipid and glycerophospholipid metabolism are interconnected, with key lipid classes (TAG, PE, PC, PI) showing significant alterations in DM-HUA comorbidity. These pathways represent potential intervention points for therapeutic development.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of plasma untargeted lipidomics requires specific reagents and materials optimized for lipid extraction, separation, and detection.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Category	Specific Reagents/Materials	Function/Purpose
Sample Collection	EDTA or heparin blood collection tubes, cryovials	Plasma separation and storage
Lipid Extraction	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, isopropanol, water	Lipid solubilization and phase separation
Internal Standards	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX or equivalent deuterated lipid mix	Quantitation normalization & quality control
Chromatography	UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm), ammonium formate	Lipid separation by hydrophobicity
Mass Spectrometry	Acetonitrile, isopropanol (LC-MS grade), formic acid	Mobile phase components for optimal ionization
Data Analysis	LipidSearch, XCMS, MetaboAnalyst platforms	Lipid identification, quantification, and pathway analysis

The MTBE-based extraction method provides comprehensive recovery of diverse lipid classes with high efficiency and reproducibility. The inclusion of appropriate internal standards is critical for accurate lipid quantification, as different lipid classes exhibit varying ionization efficiencies in mass spectrometry [1] [2].

Biological Implications and Therapeutic Perspectives

Pathophysiological Mechanisms

The distinct lipidomic profile observed in DM-HUA comorbidity suggests several interconnected pathophysiological mechanisms. Elevated triglycerides and diacylglycerols may contribute to impaired insulin signaling through activation of protein kinase C (PKC) isoforms and subsequent insulin receptor substrate phosphorylation [2]. Alterations in glycerophospholipid metabolism, particularly increased PE and PC species, indicate membrane remodeling and potential impacts on membrane fluidity, receptor function, and lipoprotein metabolism.

The association between specific lipid species and clinical parameters further supports their pathological relevance. For instance, altered phosphatidylcholine profiles have been linked to both insulin resistance and uric acid transport dysfunction, potentially creating a vicious cycle that exacerbates both conditions [1] [4]. Additionally, the observed lipid alterations may influence inflammatory pathways, as several dysregulated lipid species serve as precursors for bioactive lipid mediators involved in inflammation resolution [5].

Biomarker Discovery and Therapeutic Targeting

The lipidomic signatures identified in DM-HUA comorbidity hold significant promise for biomarker development. Specific lipid ratios or multi-lipid panels could potentially distinguish uncomplicated DM from DM-HUA comorbidity, enabling earlier intervention in high-risk patients. For instance, a panel comprising specific triglycerides, phosphatidylethanolamines, and phosphatidylcholines has demonstrated promising discriminatory power in preliminary studies [1].

From a therapeutic perspective, the dysregulated pathways identified through lipidomics represent potential targets for intervention. Modulators of glycerophospholipid metabolism or triglyceride-synthesizing enzymes may offer novel approaches for simultaneously addressing both metabolic components of the comorbidity. Additionally, lipidomic profiling could enable patient stratification for targeted therapies and provide pharmacodynamic biomarkers for assessing treatment response in clinical trials.

The following workflow diagram outlines the process from sample collection to therapeutic insight:

This integrated workflow demonstrates how systematic lipidomic profiling generates insights with direct translational potential, from initial biomarker discovery through to therapeutic application.

Global lipidomic profiling has revealed distinct patterns in DM-HUA comorbidity that extend beyond the lipid disturbances observed in either condition alone. The upregulation of specific triglycerides, phosphatidylethanolamines, and phosphatidylcholines, coupled with perturbations in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways, provides a metabolic signature unique to this comorbidity. These findings, emerging from plasma untargeted lipidomics approaches, enhance our understanding of the synergistic pathophysiology between disordered glucose metabolism and uric acid homeostasis.

For researchers and drug development professionals, these lipidomic signatures offer promising avenues for diagnostic biomarker development, patient stratification strategies, and novel therapeutic targets. The methodological framework presented herein provides a rigorous foundation for conducting such analyses, with appropriate attention to technical standardization and analytical validation. As lipidomic technologies continue to advance, their integration with other omics platforms will further illuminate the complex metabolic network underlying DM-HUA comorbidity, ultimately facilitating more targeted and effective interventions for this clinically challenging population.

Plasma untargeted lipidomics has emerged as a powerful discovery tool for identifying lipid disturbances in complex metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia. By providing a global assessment of lipids, this approach enables researchers to uncover novel biomarkers and gain insights into disease pathophysiology beyond conventional clinical biochemistry. The lipidome comprises thousands of molecular species with diverse chemical structures and biological functions, making mass spectrometry (MS) the preferred technology for lipidomic analysis due to its resolution, sensitivity, and selectivity [6]. This technical guide examines the key lipid classes—triglycerides (TGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), phosphatidylcholines (PCs), and sphingolipids (SPs)—that are consistently implicated in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia research, with a focus on analytical methodologies, quantitative findings, and pathophysiological significance.

Analytical Methodologies in Plasma Lipidomics

Sample Preparation and Chromatography

Robust sample preparation is critical for reliable lipidomic results. A standardized protocol involves collecting fasting blood plasma followed by low-temperature processing and storage at -80°C. For analysis, 100μL of plasma is typically mixed with 200μL of 4°C water, followed by the addition of 240μL of pre-cooled methanol and 800μL of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) [1]. After mixing, samples undergo sonication in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes, room temperature standing for 30 minutes, and centrifugation at 14,000g for 15 minutes at 10°C. The upper organic phase is then collected and dried under nitrogen before analysis [1].

For chromatographic separation, reverse-phase ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) on a C18 column (e.g., Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18, 2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7μm) provides excellent lipid separation. A common mobile phase system consists of A: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile-water and B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile-isopropanol with a gradient elution [1]. This setup effectively separates diverse lipid classes prior to mass spectrometry analysis.

Mass Spectrometry Platforms and Quality Control

Both untargeted and targeted MS approaches are employed in lipidomic studies, each with distinct advantages. Untargeted liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) provides broad coverage and relative quantification, while targeted platforms like the Lipidyzer system enable absolute quantification of pre-defined lipids [6]. The untargeted approach typically uses high-resolution mass spectrometry for accurate lipid identification, whereas targeted methods often employ differential mobility spectrometry (DMS) coupled with multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) on triple quadrupole instruments [6].

Quality control measures are essential for generating reliable data. Including pooled quality control samples every 10 study samples allows monitoring of analytical performance. Lipids with a coefficient of variation (CV) exceeding 30% in QC samples should be excluded from further analysis [7]. Additionally, using internal standards for each lipid class corrects for variations in extraction and ionization efficiency, with deuterated lipids serving as ideal internal standards when available [8].

Table 1: Key Technical Platforms in Lipidomics

Platform Type	Separation Method	Detection Method	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Untargeted LC-MS	Reverse Phase Liquid Chromatography	High Resolution Mass Spectrometry	Broad lipid coverage; Unbiased discovery	Semi-quantitative; Complex data processing
Targeted (Lipidyzer)	Differential Mobility Spectrometry (DMS)	Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM)	Absolute quantification; High throughput	Limited to pre-defined lipids; Platform-specific
MALDI-TOF/MS	HPLC with fraction collection	Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization	High-throughput; Minimal sample prep	Quantification challenges; Ion suppression issues

Lipid Class Alterations in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia

Triglycerides (TGs) and Glycerolipid Metabolism

Triglycerides demonstrate the most pronounced alterations in diabetic populations with hyperuricemia. A recent UHPLC-MS/MS study identified 13 triglyceride species significantly upregulated in patients with combined diabetes and hyperuricemia (DH) compared to healthy controls, including TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) [1]. Multivariate analyses revealed clear separation between DH, DM-only, and normal glucose tolerance groups, indicating distinct lipidomic signatures. Pathway analysis further established glycerolipid metabolism as one of the most significantly perturbed pathways in DH patients, with an impact value of 0.014 [1]. These findings position TGs as central players in the lipid disturbances associated with hyperuricemia complicating diabetes.

Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs) and Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)

Glycerophospholipid metabolism represents another significantly disturbed pathway in diabetes with hyperuricemia, with an impact value of 0.199 [1]. Specifically, 10 phosphatidylethanolamine species (e.g., PE(18:0/20:4)) and 7 phosphatidylcholine species (e.g., PC(36:1)) were significantly upregulated in DH patients compared to healthy controls [1]. These phospholipid alterations suggest membrane remodeling and potential changes in membrane fluidity and signaling in the context of combined metabolic disturbances. The coordinated upregulation of both PE and PC species points to broader disruptions in phosphatidylamine metabolism that may contribute to the pathophysiology of diabetes with hyperuricemia complications.

Sphingolipids (SPs)

Sphingolipids show distinct and specific alterations in metabolic diseases. Large-scale lipidomic studies in ethnic Chinese populations have revealed that specific sphingolipid species correlate with obesity and diabetes risk factors. In particular, ceramides correlate positively with BMI and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), while hexosylceramides show negative correlations with these parameters [9]. Notably, sphingolipids with non-canonical sphingoid backbones demonstrate distinctive associations: d16:1 SPs correlate more strongly with BMI and HOMA-IR, while d18:2 SPs show weaker or negative correlations compared to canonical d18:1 SPs [9]. Specific sphingomyelins, including SM d16:1/18:0 and SM d18:1/18:0, are associated with a higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes, with hazard ratios of 1.45 and 1.40, respectively [9].

Table 2: Key Lipid Alterations in Diabetes with Hyperuricemia

Lipid Class	Specific Molecular Species	Direction of Change	Statistical Significance	Proposed Biological Relevance
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) and 12 other TGs	Upregulated	P < 0.05, FDR corrected	Energy storage; Cardiovascular risk
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4) and 9 other PEs	Upregulated	P < 0.05, FDR corrected	Membrane fluidity; Signaling precursors
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1) and 6 other PCs	Upregulated	P < 0.05, FDR corrected	Membrane integrity; Lipid transport
Sphingomyelins (SMs)	SM d16:1/18:0; SM d18:1/18:0	Upregulated	HR 1.45 and 1.40 for T2DM	Insulin resistance; Ceramide precursor

Pathophysiological Implications and Metabolic Pathways

The disturbances in TG, PE, PC, and sphingolipid metabolism reflect fundamental disruptions in energy storage, membrane biology, and signaling processes in diabetes with hyperuricemia. The upregulation of multiple TG species aligns with the known association between hypertriglyceridemia and insulin resistance, potentially contributing to ectopic lipid accumulation and lipotoxicity. The coordinated increases in specific PE and PC species suggest adaptive membrane remodeling or disturbances in one-carbon metabolism, which may influence cellular signaling and organ function.

In sphingolipid metabolism, the balance between different sphingolipid classes appears crucial. The opposing correlations of ceramides and hexosylceramides with metabolic parameters suggest that the balance of sphingolipid metabolism, rather than simple ceramide accumulation, associates with obesity pathology [9]. This balance may represent a key regulatory node in metabolic disease pathogenesis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Plasma Lipidomics

Reagent/Material	Specification	Function in Workflow	Example Application
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	HPLC grade	Lipid extraction solvent	Efficient extraction of diverse lipid classes [1]
Deuterated lipid standards	Mixture covering 10+ lipid classes	Internal standards for quantification	Correction for extraction/ionization variance [6]
9-Aminoacridine (9-AA)	MALDI grade	Matrix for MALDI-TOF analysis	Enables quantitative MALDI for phospholipids, TGs [8]
UHPLC C18 Column	2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7μm	Chromatographic separation	Reverse-phase separation of lipid species [1]
Ammonium formate	MS grade	Mobile phase additive	Enhances ionization efficiency in ESI-MS [1]
Quality Control Plasma	Standard Reference Material 1950	Quality assurance	Inter-laboratory standardization [10]

Plasma untargeted lipidomics has revealed consistent and reproducible alterations in triglycerides, phosphatidylethanolamines, phosphatidylcholines, and sphingolipids in diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia. These lipid disturbances map to specific metabolic pathways, particularly glycerolipid and glycerophospholipid metabolism, providing insights into the underlying pathophysiology of this complex metabolic condition. Standardized methodologies with appropriate quality controls are essential for generating reliable, reproducible lipidomic data that can advance our understanding of disease mechanisms and potentially identify novel therapeutic targets. The continued refinement of lipidomic platforms and establishment of community guidelines will further enhance the translational potential of lipidomics in metabolic disease research.

Plasma untargeted lipidomics has emerged as a powerful discovery tool for identifying pathological signatures in complex metabolic diseases. Research on diabetes mellitus (DM) combined with hyperuricemia (DH) has consistently revealed that glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism represent the most significantly perturbed pathways in this comorbid condition [11]. These pathways are not merely bystanders but actively contribute to disease pathogenesis through multiple mechanisms, including membrane dysfunction, impaired insulin signaling, and systemic metabolic inflammation [12]. The convergence of evidence from multiple lipidomic studies indicates that abnormalities in these lipid metabolic pathways serve as a metabolic bridge linking hyperglycemia and hyperuricemia, offering new avenues for biomarker discovery and therapeutic intervention.

The integration of lipidomics into metabolic disease research has enabled scientists to move beyond conventional biomarkers like HbA1c and fasting glucose to capture a more comprehensive picture of the lipid disturbances that precede and accompany disease progression [11]. This review synthesizes current evidence on glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid dysregulation in diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia, providing technical guidance on experimental approaches, key findings, and translational applications for researchers and drug development professionals.

Pathophysiological Significance of Glycerophospholipid and Glycerolipid Pathways

Glycerophospholipid Metabolism in Metabolic Disease

Glycerophospholipids serve as fundamental structural components of cellular membranes and play crucial roles in cellular signaling, membrane fluidity, and organelle function. In the context of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, glycerophospholipid remodeling has been identified as a critical pathological feature [12]. Research demonstrates that obesogenic conditions accelerate the skeletal muscle Lands cycle, a glycerophospholipid remodeling pathway, leading to disrupted plasma membrane organization that suppresses insulin action [12]. Specifically, lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase 3 (LPCAT3), an enzyme that preferentially inserts arachidonic acid into glycerophospholipids, is transcriptionally induced in myotubes and muscle biopsies from subjects with obesity, promoting insulin resistance through alterations in membrane properties [12].

The significance of glycerophospholipid metabolism extends beyond insulin signaling. In patients with hyperuricemia, glycerophospholipid metabolism emerges as one of the primary disrupted pathways, connecting lipid dysregulation to uric acid metabolism [13]. This pathway interacts with immune function, with studies showing that immune factors including IL-6, TGF-β1, and CPT1 are associated with glycerophospholipid metabolism alterations in hyperuricemia [13]. The interconnection between glycerophospholipid metabolism and inflammatory processes may explain part of the pathological link between hyperuricemia and its comorbid conditions.

Glycerolipid Metabolism and Energy Homeostasis

Glycerolipids, particularly triglycerides and diglycerides, play well-established roles in energy storage but also contribute significantly to metabolic signaling. The glycerolipid/free fatty acid (GL/FFA) cycle, once considered a "futile" cycle due to its ATP consumption, is now recognized for its "vital" cellular signaling roles in many biological processes [14]. This cycle involves continuous formation and hydrolysis of glycerolipids with concomitant heat release, organized as several composite short substrate/product cycles where forward and backward reactions are catalyzed by separate enzymes [14].

Alterations in GL/FFA cycling are implicated in the pathogenesis of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and other metabolic conditions [14]. In diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia, glycerolipid metabolism demonstrates significant perturbations, with one study reporting an impact value of 0.014 for this pathway in DH patients [11]. The dysregulation of glycerolipid metabolism contributes to ectopic lipid deposition and lipotoxicity, exacerbating target organ damage in the heart, kidneys, retina, and brain [15]. Lipid droplet dynamics, which are intimately connected to glycerolipid metabolism, become dysregulated in T2DM, leading to impaired lipolysis and autophagy that promotes excessive lipid accumulation beyond compensatory capacity [15].

Lipidomic Profiling in Diabetes and Hyperuricemia: Key Findings

Comparative Lipidomics Across Disease States

Untargeted lipidomic analyses have revealed distinct lipid profiles that differentiate diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia from diabetes alone or healthy states. A study employing UHPLC-MS/MS-based plasma untargeted lipidomic analysis identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses, with multivariate analyses showing significant separation trends among the DH, DM, and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) groups [11]. This comprehensive profiling confirmed distinct lipidomic signatures in the comorbid condition.

Table 1: Significantly Altered Lipid Metabolites in Diabetes Mellitus with Hyperuricemia

Lipid Category	Specific Lipid Molecules	Change in DH vs NGT	Biological Significance
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) and 12 other TGs	Significantly upregulated	Energy storage, lipotoxicity
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4) and 9 other PEs	Significantly upregulated	Membrane fluidity, signaling
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1) and 6 other PCs	Significantly upregulated	Membrane structure, signaling
Phosphatidylinositol (PI)	Not specified	Significantly downregulated	Cell signaling, membrane trafficking

When comparing DH versus DM groups, researchers identified 12 differential lipids that were predominantly enriched in the same core pathways (glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism), underscoring their central role in the pathophysiology of hyperuricemia complicating diabetes [11]. These findings suggest that the addition of hyperuricemia to diabetes creates a unique lipid disturbance pattern that extends beyond the lipid profile observed in diabetes alone.

Pathway Analysis of Lipidomic Data

Metabolic pathway analysis of lipidomic data from DH patients reveals the overarching significance of glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism. One study reported that glycerophospholipid metabolism demonstrated an impact value of 0.199, while glycerolipid metabolism showed an impact value of 0.014, identifying them as the most significantly perturbed pathways in DH patients [11]. The collective analysis of 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites revealed their enrichment in six major metabolic pathways, with glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism being the most prominent.

Similar findings have been reported in studies focusing specifically on hyperuricemia. A lipidomic investigation of hyperuricemia patients identified 33 significantly upregulated lipid metabolites involved in five metabolic pathways, with arachidonic acid metabolism, glycerophospholipid metabolism, and linoleic acid metabolism being the most significantly altered [13]. This consistent identification of glycerophospholipid metabolism across different study populations highlights its fundamental role in metabolic dysregulation associated with hyperuricemia.

Experimental Protocols for Lipidomic Analysis

Sample Collection and Preparation

Standardized protocols for sample collection and processing are critical for generating reliable, reproducible lipidomic data. The following workflow outlines a typical sample preparation procedure for plasma untargeted lipidomics:

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Plasma Lipidomics

Reagent/Equipment	Specification	Function in Protocol
Blood Collection Tubes	Sodium heparin or EDTA tubes	Anticoagulation for plasma separation
Centrifuge	Temperature-controlled (4°C)	Plasma separation at 3,000 rpm for 10 min
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	HPLC or LC/MS grade	Lipid extraction from plasma
Methanol	Pre-cooled, HPLC grade	Protein precipitation, lipid extraction
Ammonium formate	10 mM in acetonitrile/water	Mobile phase additive for LC-MS
UPLC BEH C18 Column	2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm	Lipid separation prior to mass spectrometry

The sample preparation protocol typically involves collecting 5 mL of fasting venous blood followed by immediate centrifugation at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma [11]. For lipid extraction, 100 μL of plasma is mixed with 200 μL of 4°C water, followed by addition of 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol and 800 μL of MTBE [11]. After vortexing, the mixture undergoes sonication in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes and stands at room temperature for 30 minutes. Subsequent centrifugation at 14,000 g for 15 minutes at 10°C separates the organic phase, which is then collected and dried under nitrogen [11]. The dried lipids are reconstituted in 100 μL of isopropanol for LC-MS analysis.

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis Conditions

Chromatographic separation represents a critical step in comprehensive lipidomic profiling. The following conditions are typically employed for untargeted lipidomics:

Chromatographic Conditions: Lipid separation is performed using a Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 mm i.d. × 100 mm length, 1.7 μm particle size) maintained at 45°C [11]. The mobile phase consists of: Mobile phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:water (6:4, v/v); Mobile phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:isopropanol (2:9, v/v) [11]. The flow rate is maintained at 300 μL/min with a gradient elution program starting at 30% mobile phase B (0-2 min), increasing to 100% B (2-25 min), followed by re-equilibration at 30% B (25-35 min) [11].

Mass Spectrometry Parameters: Analysis is typically performed using Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer with electrospray ionization in both positive and negative modes [13]. Key source parameters include: Sheath gas flow rate: 45 arb; Auxiliary gas flow rate: 15 arb; Spray voltage: 3.0 kV (positive mode) or 2.5 kV (negative mode); Capillary temperature: 350°C; Heater temperature: 300°C; S-lens RF level: 50% (positive) or 60% (negative) [13]. Full scan resolution is typically set at 70,000 at m/z 200, with data-dependent MS/MS acquisition at 17,500 resolution.

Figure 1: Experimental Workflow for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics in Diabetes-Hyperuricemia Research

Therapeutic Implications and Intervention Strategies

Pharmacological Modulation of Dysregulated Pathways

Emerging evidence suggests that therapeutic interventions can target glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism to ameliorate metabolic disturbances in diabetes and hyperuricemia. Studies on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have demonstrated their significant effects on remodeling glycerophospholipid metabolism [16] [17]. In recent-onset type 2 diabetes patients, treatment with dulaglutide or liraglutide for 12 weeks resulted in significant changes in glycerophospholipid metabolites, identifying remodeling of glycerophospholipid metabolism as a signature treatment effect [16] [17]. This remodeling was associated with improvements in glycemic control and enrichment of metabolic pathways including insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus pathways.

The regulatory effects of pharmacological agents on lipid metabolism extend to tissue-specific responses. Research indicates that existing therapeutic interventions, including certain antidiabetic and lipid-lowering drugs as well as bioactive natural products, demonstrate tissue-specific regulatory effects on lipid droplet dynamics [15]. These findings highlight the potential for developing targeted therapies that specifically address the lipid metabolic disturbances in different tissues affected by diabetes and hyperuricemia.

Emerging Therapeutic Approaches

Beyond conventional pharmacological interventions, several novel strategies targeting glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism are under investigation. These include:

LPCAT3 Inhibition: Research suggests that genetic or pharmacological inhibition of LPCAT3 increases muscle insulin sensitivity, while increasing LPCAT3 suppresses insulin sensitivity [12]. This positions LPCAT3 as a potential therapeutic target for addressing insulin resistance associated with glycerophospholipid remodeling.

Lipid Droplet-Targeted Therapies: Emerging strategies targeting lipid droplets include photodynamic therapy, gene editing, and gut microbiota modulation [15]. These approaches aim to restore normal LD dynamics and prevent ectopic lipid deposition that contributes to tissue damage in diabetes complications.

Multi-Target Interventions: Given the interconnected nature of glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism with immune function and inflammatory processes, interventions that simultaneously address multiple aspects of these pathways may offer superior efficacy [13]. The association between immune factors (IL-10, CPT1, IL-6, SEP1, TGF-β1, Glu, TNF-α, and LD) and glycerophospholipid metabolism suggests that combined immunomodulatory and metabolic approaches may be beneficial.

Technical Challenges and Methodological Considerations

Analytical Challenges in Lipidomics

Despite advances in lipidomic methodologies, several technical challenges persist in the comprehensive analysis of glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism:

Reproducibility and Platform Variability: Different lipidomics platforms often yield divergent outcomes from the same data during validation, with agreement rates as low as 14-36% between prominent software platforms like MS DIAL and Lipostar when using default settings, even with identical LC-MS data [18]. This highlights the critical importance of method standardization and validation.

Structural Diversity and Identification: The immense structural diversity of lipids presents significant challenges for confident identification. While untargeted approaches can detect thousands of lipid features, a substantial portion remains unidentified or ambiguously annotated due to limitations in reference databases and fragmentation interpretation algorithms [18].

Quantitation Accuracy: Accurate quantification remains challenging due to differential ionization efficiencies among lipid classes, requiring careful selection of internal standards and validation of quantitative performance across different lipid classes [18].

Validation Strategies

To address these challenges, researchers should implement rigorous validation approaches:

Combined Untargeted and Targeted Methods: Integrating discovery-phase untargeted lipidomics with validation-phase targeted analysis provides a powerful strategy for biomarker verification [19]. This approach leverages the comprehensive coverage of untargeted methods with the precision and quantitative rigor of targeted approaches.

Multi-platform Validation: Confirming lipid identifications across different analytical platforms (e.g., different LC conditions, ionization modes) strengthens confidence in lipid annotations and quantitative measurements [18].

Standardized Reporting: Adopting standardized nomenclature and reporting guidelines for lipidomics data facilitates cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses, enhancing the translational potential of research findings [18].

Figure 2: Pathway Interrelationships and Therapeutic Targeting in Diabetes-Hyperuricemia

The integration of plasma untargeted lipidomics into diabetes and hyperuricemia research has fundamentally advanced our understanding of the pathological roles played by glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism. These pathways represent not just biomarkers of disease states but active participants in disease pathogenesis through their effects on membrane properties, signaling pathways, and metabolic homeostasis. The consistent identification of these pathways across multiple studies highlights their central importance in the comorbidity of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia.

Future research directions should focus on several key areas: First, the development of standardized analytical protocols and reference materials to improve reproducibility and cross-study comparability. Second, the implementation of longitudinal study designs to establish temporal relationships between lipid disturbances and disease progression. Third, the integration of lipidomics with other omics technologies to develop comprehensive molecular models of disease pathogenesis. Finally, the translation of lipidomic findings into clinical applications through the development of targeted therapies and personalized medicine approaches based on individual lipidomic profiles.

As lipidomic technologies continue to evolve and our understanding of these metabolic pathways deepens, targeting glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism holds significant promise for developing novel diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic strategies for diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia and related metabolic disorders.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA) are prevalent metabolic disorders that frequently co-occur, creating a complex clinical phenotype known as diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia (DM-HUA). By 2045, an estimated 783.2 million people worldwide will be living with diabetes [20]. Concurrently, hyperuricemia affects approximately 17.7% of the study participants in mainland China [11]. This coexistence is clinically significant, as elevated uric acid levels in diabetic patients are closely associated with complications including diabetic nephropathy, adverse cardiac events, and peripheral vascular disease [11].

Conventional clinical biomarkers like fasting glucose and HbA1c cannot capture the full spectrum of metabolic disturbances in these conditions [11]. Lipidomics, a branch of metabolomics, has emerged as a powerful tool to characterize specific lipid perturbations that precede and accompany disease states [11] [21]. This technical guide synthesizes current lipidomic research to elucidate the distinct lipid profiles distinguishing DM-HUA from DM alone and healthy controls, providing methodologies, pathway analyses, and analytical resources for researchers in the field.

Methodological Framework in Untargeted Plasma Lipidomics

Sample Preparation and Chromatography

Robust sample preparation is critical for reproducible lipidomic analysis. The standard protocol involves:

• Sample Collection: Collecting 5 mL of fasting morning blood and centrifuging at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma [11].
• Plasma Storage: Storing aliquoted plasma (0.2 mL) at -80°C until analysis [11].
• Lipid Extraction: Employing a methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)-based extraction method [11]. Specifically, 100 μL of plasma is mixed with 200 μL of 4°C water, followed by adding 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol and 800 μL of MTBE. The mixture undergoes 20 minutes of sonication in a low-temperature water bath and 30 minutes of standing at room temperature before centrifugation at 14,000 g for 15 minutes at 10°C [11].
• Sample Reconstitution: Drying the upper organic phase under nitrogen and reconstituting in 100 μL of isopropanol for analysis [11].

UHPLC-MS/MS Instrumentation and Analysis

Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) serves as the cornerstone technology for comprehensive lipid separation and identification.

Chromatographic Conditions [11]:

• Column: Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 mm i.d. × 100 mm length, 1.7 μm particle size)
• Mobile Phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile solution in water
• Mobile Phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile isopropanol solution
• Gradient Elution: A complex gradient is essential for separating diverse lipid classes

Mass Spectrometry Detection:

• Multiple mass spectrometry platforms are employed, including quadrupole-time-of-flight (Q-TOF) configurations for high-resolution mass detection [20].
• The specific MS parameters (ionization mode, mass range) should be optimized for the instrument used.

Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

• Lipid Identification: Using software tools like Lipid Data Analyzer (LDA), LipidFinder, or MS-Dial for lipid identification [21].
• Multivariate Statistics: Applying principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) to visualize group separations and identify significant lipid markers [11] [20].
• Differential Analysis: Combining Student's t-test and fold-change (FC) calculations to pinpoint significantly altered lipids [11].
• Pathway Analysis: Utilizing platforms like MetaboAnalyst 5.0 and BioPAN to identify enriched metabolic pathways based on lipid alterations [11] [21].

Table 1: Key Experimental Parameters for UHPLC-MS/MS-Based Plasma Lipidomics

Parameter	Specification	Function
Chromatography
UHPLC System	Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography	High-resolution lipid separation
Column	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 [11]	Reversed-phase separation of lipids
Mobile Phase	10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/water & acetonitrile/isopropanol [11]	Gradient elution of lipid classes
Mass Spectrometry
MS System	Tandem Mass Spectrometer (MS/MS) or Q-TOF-MS [11] [20]	Accurate mass detection and structural characterization
Sample Preparation
Lipid Extraction	MTBE-based method [11]	Comprehensive lipid recovery from plasma
Protein Precipitation	Pre-cooled methanol [11]	Removal of interfering proteins

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for untargeted plasma lipidomics, covering sample preparation to biological interpretation.

Key Lipidomic Findings: DM-HUA vs. DM vs. Healthy Controls

Lipidomic Profile of DM-HUA Versus Healthy Controls

Comparative analysis reveals profound lipid disruptions in DM-HUA patients compared to healthy normoglycemic controls. A study identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses in plasma samples [11]. Multivariate analyses including PCA and OPLS-DA showed a significant separation trend among the DH, DM, and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) groups, confirming distinct lipidomic profiles [11].

Specifically, researchers pinpointed 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites in the DH group compared to NGT controls [11]:

• 13 triglycerides (TGs), including TG(16:0/18:1/18:2)
• 10 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), including PE(18:0/20:4)
• 7 phosphatidylcholines (PCs), including PC(36:1)
• 1 phosphatidylinositol (PI) was significantly downregulated

All significantly altered lipids except PI were upregulated in the DM-HUA group, indicating a comprehensive disruption of lipid homeostasis [11].

Distinct Lipid Signature of DM-HUA Versus DM Alone

The comparison between DM-HUA and DM alone reveals a more refined lipid signature specific to the hyperuricemic complication in diabetes. Research identified 12 differential lipids between these groups [11]. While the specific identities of these 12 lipids were not detailed in the available text, the study emphasized that these differential lipids were predominantly enriched in the same core pathways (glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism) as those identified in the DM-HUA versus healthy control comparison [11]. This underscores the central role of these pathways in the pathophysiology of hyperuricemia complicating diabetes.

Lipid Alterations in Diabetes with Dyslipidemia

Complementary research on newly diagnosed T2DM with dyslipidemia (NDDD) provides additional context for lipid disturbances in complex diabetic phenotypes. This research found significant changes in 15 lipid molecules in the NDDD group compared to healthy controls, including:

• Lysophosphatidylcholine (LysoPC)
• Phosphatidylcholine (PC)
• Phosphatidylethanolamine (PE)
• Sphingomyelin (SM)
• Ceramide (Cer) [20]

Notably, Cer(d18:1/24:0) and SM(d18:1/24:0) were identified as essential potential biomarkers strongly linked to clinical parameters through synthetic analysis [20].

Table 2: Significantly Altered Lipid Classes in Comparative Lipidomics

Comparison	Total Differential Lipids	Key Upregulated Lipid Classes	Key Downregulated Lipid Classes
DM-HUA vs. Healthy	31 [11]	TG (13 species), PE (10 species), PC (7 species) [11]	PI (1 species) [11]
DM-HUA vs. DM	12 [11]	Predominantly TG, PE, PC [11]	Information not specified
NDDD vs. Healthy	15 [20]	LysoPC, PC, PE, SM, Cer [20]	Information not specified
HL vs. Healthy	23 [20]	LysoPC, PC, PE, SM, Cer [20]	Information not specified

Metabolic Pathway Analysis

Pathway analysis of differential lipids reveals the core metabolic networks disturbed in DM-HUA. The collective analysis of altered metabolites revealed their enrichment in six major metabolic pathways [11]. Crucially, two pathways were identified as most significantly perturbed:

• Glycerophospholipid metabolism (impact value of 0.199) [11]
• Glycerolipid metabolism (impact value of 0.014) [11]

In studies of diabetic dyslipidemia, sphingolipid metabolism and glycerophospholipid metabolism are considered the most important pathways disrupted in glucose and lipid metabolism [20]. These pathways play fundamental roles in membrane integrity, cell signaling, and energy storage, with their disruption contributing to insulin resistance, inflammation, and cellular dysfunction in combined metabolic disorders.

Figure 2: Key lipid metabolic pathways disturbed in DM-HUA, with green indicating upregulated lipids and red indicating downregulated lipids.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Plasma Lipidomics

Reagent/Material	Function	Example Specifications
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) [11]	Lipid extraction from plasma	HPLC grade
MS-grade Acetonitrile, Methanol, Isopropanol [20]	Mobile phase components; sample reconstitution	MS-grade (e.g., Merck)
Ammonium Formate [11] [20]	Mobile phase additive	HPLC grade
Lipid Standards (e.g., LysoPC(18:0/0:0), LysoPC(18:1/0:0)) [20]	Quality control and quantification	Avanti Polar Lipids

Bioinformatics and Data Analysis Tools

• BioPAN: A web-based tool to explore mammalian lipidome metabolic pathways; allows visualization of quantitative lipidomics data in the context of known biosynthetic pathways [21].
• MetaboAnalyst 5.0: A comprehensive platform for pathway analysis of metabolomic data [11].
• LipidLynxX: A tool for cross-matching lipid names into standardized nomenclature [21].
• LIPID MAPS Structure Database (LMSD): A curated database of lipid structures [21].

This technical guide synthesizes current evidence on the distinct lipidomic signatures that characterize diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia compared to diabetes alone and healthy controls. The findings reveal consistent alterations in triglycerides, glycerophospholipids, and sphingolipids, implicating glycerophospholipid, glycerolipid, and sphingolipid metabolism as central pathways in this complex metabolic phenotype. The standardized methodologies, analytical frameworks, and research resources presented herein provide a foundation for advancing biomarker discovery and mechanistic understanding in this evolving field. Future research directions should include longitudinal studies to establish temporal relationships between lipid alterations and disease progression, and interventional studies to explore the modulation of these pathways for therapeutic benefit.

Early-onset metabolic and cardiovascular diseases present a significant clinical challenge, often characterized by a more severe phenotype and accelerated progression. Contemporary lipidomic research reveals that a core component of this aggressiveness is exaggerated lipid disturbance in younger patients. Utilizing plasma untargeted lipidomics, studies demonstrate that conditions such as hyperuricemia, gout, diabetes mellitus (DM), and high cardiovascular risk manifest with more profound alterations in the lipidome when onset occurs at a younger age (typically ≤40 years). These disturbances are predominantly concentrated in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism, offering a molecular rationale for the adverse clinical trajectories observed in early-onset cases. This whitepaper details the specific lipidomic signatures, explores the implicated metabolic pathways, and outlines the standardized experimental protocols that underpin these critical findings, providing a resource for researchers and drug development professionals in the field of metabolic diseases.

The global rise in the incidence of early-onset metabolic diseases necessitates a deeper understanding of their unique pathophysiology. While traditional risk factors and lipid panels (e.g., LDL-C, total cholesterol) are informative, they often fail to fully explain the heightened risk in younger populations. The emergence of untargeted lipidomics has provided an unprecedented lens through which to view this phenomenon. This technology enables the systematic, high-throughput profiling of hundreds to thousands of lipid species in a biological sample, moving beyond conventional metrics to uncover subtle yet pathologically significant molecular changes.

The central thesis supported by recent evidence is that an early-onset phenotype is associated with a magnified disruption of the plasma lipidome. This is not merely a quantitative difference in common lipids but a qualitative shift in specific lipid classes and species. For instance, in patients with hyperuricemia or gout, the most significant glycerophospholipid dysregulation is found in those with an age of onset ≤40 years [22] [23]. Similarly, lipidomic profiling in the context of diabetes and high cardiovascular risk has identified distinct and more pronounced lipid alterations in younger, high-risk individuals [24] [11]. This whitepaper synthesizes these findings, framing them within the broader context of plasma untargeted lipidomics research in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, to elucidate the exaggerated lipid disturbances that define the early-onset phenotype.

Lipidomic Signatures of Early-Onset Phenotypes

Data from multiple studies consistently reveal that early-onset disease is characterized by specific, amplified alterations in the plasma lipidome. The following tables summarize the key lipidomic changes associated with younger patients across different conditions.

Table 1: Lipidomic Signatures in Early-Onset Hyperuricemia and Gout (Age ≤40 Years)

Condition (vs. Healthy Controls)	Key Altered Lipid Classes	Specific Lipid Species Examples & Direction of Change	Statistical & Performance Notes
Asymptomatic Hyperuricemia (HUA)	↑ Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE)↓ Lysophosphatidylcholine Plasmalogens/Plasmanyls	Significant upregulation of various PE species [22].	Multivariate models differentiated HUA ≤40 from HC with >95% accuracy [22].
Gout	↑ Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE)↓ Lysophosphatidylcholine Plasmalogens/Plasmanyls	Significant upregulation of various PE species [22].	More profound changes in Gout ≤40 without Urate-Lowering Treatment (ULT) [22].

Table 2: Lipidomic Signatures in Diabetes Mellitus with Hyperuricemia and High Cardiovascular Risk

Condition (vs. Controls)	Key Altered Lipid Classes	Specific Lipid Species Examples & Direction of Change	Pathway Enrichment
Diabetes Mellitus & Hyperuricemia (DH)	↑ Triglycerides (TG)↑ Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE)↑ Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) ↑PE(18:0/20:4) ↑PC(36:1) ↑ [11]	Glycerophospholipid metabolism (Impact: 0.199)Glycerolipid metabolism (Impact: 0.014) [11]
High/Very High CV Risk (suspected FH)	↑ Phosphatidylcholines (PC)↑ Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE)↑ Phosphatidylglycerol (PG)	PC(O-36:0/16:0) ↑ (OR: 1.246, p=0.0157)PE(O-40:7/22:6) ↑ (OR: 1.119, p=0.0028)PG(40:8/20:4) ↑ (OR: 1.053, p=0.0219) [24]	Associations with arterial hypertension, atherosclerosis, and insulin resistance [24].

Experimental Protocols in Untargeted Plasma Lipidomics

The robust identification of the lipidomic signatures detailed above relies on standardized, high-resolution methodologies. The following section outlines the core experimental protocols employed in the cited research.

Sample Preparation and Lipid Extraction

The consistency of lipidomic profiling begins with meticulous sample handling and preparation.

• Blood Collection and Plasma Separation: Venous blood is collected from participants after a prescribed fast into EDTA tubes. Samples are centrifuged (e.g., 2000× g for 15 min at room temperature) to separate plasma, which is then aliquoted and immediately stored at -80°C to prevent degradation and avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles [24].
• Lipid Extraction: The Bligh and Dyer method or its modifications is the gold standard. In brief, a precise volume of plasma (e.g., 50-100 µL) is mixed with a chloroform-methanol solvent system (e.g., 1:2 v/v) to create a monophasic solution. Subsequent addition of water and/or chloroform induces phase separation, with the lower organic phase containing the extracted lipids. This phase is recovered, dried under a gentle nitrogen stream, and the lipid residue is reconstituted in a solvent compatible with the downstream LC-MS analysis (e.g., dichloromethane-methanol 50/50 v/v) [24] [25]. Internal standard mixtures (e.g., SPLASH LIPIDOMIX) are added at the beginning of extraction to correct for procedural variability [23].

Lipidomic Analysis by UHPLC-MS/MS

Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled with tandem Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) is the cornerstone of modern untargeted lipidomics.

• Chromatographic Separation: Lipid extracts are separated using reversed-phase chromatography, typically on a C18 column (e.g., Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18, 2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 µm). A binary mobile phase gradient is employed, often consisting of water and acetonitrile/isopropanol, both modified with volatile ammonium salts (e.g., ammonium formate or acetate) to enhance ionization efficiency. This separation reduces ion suppression and allows for the resolution of complex lipid mixtures [11] [26].
• Mass Spectrometric Detection: High-resolution mass spectrometers, such as TripleTOF or Q-TOF systems, are used for untargeted profiling. Data is acquired in both positive and negative ionization modes to capture the full spectrum of lipid classes. Common acquisition modes include:
  • Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA): Full-scan MS spectra are followed by automated selection of intense ions for fragmentation (MS/MS), providing structural information.
  • MS^ALL / Infusion Mode: A systematic approach where sequential MS/MS scans are performed across the entire mass range, ensuring comprehensive fragmentation data for all detectable lipids [24].

Data Processing and Multivariate Statistical Analysis

The raw LC-MS data undergoes a rigorous processing pipeline to identify and quantify lipid species.

• Peak Picking and Alignment: Software platforms (e.g., MarkerLynx, XCMS) are used to detect chromatographic peaks, align them across all samples, and integrate peak areas. Lipids are identified based on their accurate mass and fragmentation spectra by querying databases such as LIPID MAPS.
• Multivariate Statistics: Processed data is subjected to statistical analysis. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) provides an unsupervised overview of data clustering and outliers. Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) is a supervised method used to maximize the separation between predefined groups (e.g., patients vs. controls) and identify the lipid species most responsible for this discrimination. The model quality is validated using parameters (R2Y, Q2) and permutation testing to prevent overfitting [11] [19].

Visualizing Lipid Metabolism and Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core metabolic pathways disturbed in early-onset phenotypes and the standard experimental workflow for lipidomic analysis.

Glycerophospholipid Metabolism Pathway

This diagram outlines the simplified biosynthesis pathway of major glycerophospholipids, which are consistently disrupted in early-onset metabolic diseases.

Untargeted Lipidomics Workflow

This chart details the end-to-end process, from sample collection to data interpretation, as used in the cited studies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful execution of a plasma untargeted lipidomics study requires a suite of high-purity reagents and standardized materials. The following table catalogs key components used in the featured experiments.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Item Name	Function / Application	Specific Examples / Notes
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Lipid extraction and mobile phase preparation; essential for minimizing background noise and ion suppression.	Acetonitrile, Methanol, Chloroform, Isopropanol, Water (e.g., J.T. Baker, Burdick & Jackson) [24] [23].
Volatile Ammonium Salts	Mobile phase additive to enhance ionization efficiency of lipids in the mass spectrometer.	Ammonium formate, Ammonium acetate [11] [26].
Deuterated Internal Standards	Added to samples prior to extraction to correct for losses during preparation and variations in MS response.	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard; Ceramide (d18:1-d7/15:0) [23].
Standard Reference Material	Quality control to monitor analytical platform performance, stability, and reproducibility across batches.	NIST SRM 1950 - Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma [23].
UHPLC C18 Column	Core chromatographic hardware for separating complex lipid mixtures prior to mass spectrometry.	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1x100mm, 1.7µm) [11] [26].
Quality Control (QC) Plasma Pool	A pooled sample from a subset of the study cohort, used to condition the system and interspersed throughout the run to monitor signal drift [26].	Prepared from study samples; used for batch correction via LOESS regression.

Discussion and Pathophysiological Implications

The convergence of lipidomic data from diverse early-onset conditions points towards a common pathophysiological theme: a pronounced dysregulation of glycerophospholipid metabolism. Glycerophospholipids, such as phosphatidylcholines (PC) and phosphatidylethanolamines (PE), are fundamental structural components of all cellular membranes and play vital roles in signaling, membrane fluidity, and apoptosis. The significant upregulation of specific PE and PC species in younger patients, as observed in hyperuricemia, gout, and diabetes with hyperuricemia [11] [22], suggests a fundamental disruption in membrane biology and cellular signaling that may drive disease initiation and progression.

Furthermore, the consistent reduction in lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) plasmalogens in early-onset hyperuricemia and gout is particularly noteworthy [22]. Plasmalogens are a subclass of phospholipids with antioxidant properties, and their depletion may indicate increased oxidative stress, a known contributor to endothelial dysfunction and inflammation. This specific lipidomic signature could explain the heightened risk of cardiovascular and renal comorbidities in these patients. The finding that urate-lowering treatment (ULT) can partially correct this lipidomic imbalance suggests that these lipid species are not merely biomarkers but may be active players in the disease process, offering potential targets for therapeutic intervention [22].

From a clinical perspective, the ability of multivariate lipidomic models to differentiate early-onset patients from healthy controls with high accuracy (>95%) [22] underscores the potential of lipidomics for early risk stratification. Identifying these exaggerated lipid disturbances long before the onset of clinical complications could enable preemptive, personalized medicine approaches for younger at-risk individuals. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to establish causality, the development of standardized diagnostic panels, and the exploration of therapeutics specifically designed to normalize the disrupted lipidomic landscape in early-onset phenotypes.

Analytical Frameworks: UHPLC-MS/MS Workflows for Comprehensive Lipid Profiling

Within the expanding field of metabolomics, plasma untargeted lipidomics has emerged as a powerful technique for discovering novel biomarkers and elucidating the pathophysiological mechanisms of complex metabolic diseases. When investigating conditions such as diabetes mellitus (DM) combined with hyperuricemia (HUA), the integrity of the entire research enterprise hinges on a rigorously designed study cohort. The profound lipidomic perturbations inherent to these diseases, as revealed by advanced mass spectrometry, can only be accurately interpreted against a backdrop of carefully selected and matched study participants. This guide provides an in-depth examination of cohort selection and matching strategies, framed within the context of a broader thesis on plasma untargeted lipidomics research in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, to empower researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals in designing robust and reproducible studies.

Defining Cohort Selection Criteria

The foundation of any successful lipidomics study is the precise definition of its participant groups. This involves establishing clear diagnostic criteria for each study cohort and implementing strict exclusion parameters to control for confounding variables.

Diagnostic and Grouping Criteria

Table 1: Key Diagnostic and Grouping Criteria from Recent Lipidomics Studies

Study Focus	Group Definitions	Primary Diagnostic Criteria	Matching Strategy
DM with HUA [1]	DH (DM+HUA), DM only, NGT (Healthy)	DM: ADA/WHO criteria (FBG ≥7.0 mmol/L).HUA: SUA >420 μmol/L (M), >360 μmol/L (F).	1:1 matching by sex and age.
T2DM Progression [27]	Control, HR (High Risk), NDT2D (Newly Diagnosed), MTYT2D (Chronic)	HR: BMI ≥25, IGT, or HbA1c 5.7-6.5%.NDT2D: New diagnosis, drug-naïve.MTYT2D: Diagnosis >2 years.	Recruitment of male subjects only (35-65 years) to control for hormonal variation.
Diabetic Retinopathy [2]	NDR (No Retinopathy), NPDR (Non-Proliferative)	DR classification per Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study.	Exclusion of patients on statins or with other chronic diseases (e.g., severe hypertension, kidney failure).
Clinical Profiling [28]	Hospitalized DM patients	HbA1c >6.5%, FBS >126 mg/dL, or on glucose-lowering medication.	Cross-sectional design; analysis stratified by SUA level (above/below 6.8 mg/dL).

Exclusion Criteria and Confounding Factors

To ensure that observed lipidomic differences are attributable to the conditions under investigation rather than extraneous factors, stringent exclusion criteria are paramount. Key considerations include:

• Medication Use: The exclusion of individuals using lipid-lowering drugs, hypoglycemic agents, or medications affecting uric acid metabolism (e.g., diuretics, allopurinol, benzbromarone) is critical, as these can directly alter lipid profiles and uric acid levels [1] [28].
• Comorbidities: The presence of conditions such as gout, primary kidney disease, renal insufficiency, leukemia, and tumors can independently affect systemic metabolism and should typically be grounds for exclusion [1].
• Other Factors: To reduce biological noise, studies often exclude individuals with other psychiatric diseases, low cooperation, and pregnant or lactating women [1]. Furthermore, some studies control for diet and lifestyle factors that can influence lipid concentrations.

Matching Strategies in Cohort Design

Matching is a fundamental technique to minimize the impact of confounding variables, thereby increasing the statistical power and validity of a study.

• Demographic Matching: The most common approach involves matching participants between case and control groups based on sex and age, as these are strong determinants of the lipidome [1]. For instance, a study on DM and HUA employed a 1:1 matched case-control design on these demographics [1].
• Population Homogeneity: Restricting a study to a single sex, as seen in a lipidomics study of T2DM progression that recruited only male subjects, is a more extreme but effective method to eliminate variability introduced by hormonal differences [27].
• Sample Size Considerations: While untargeted lipidomics can generate vast amounts of data from a single sample, adequate sample size remains crucial for robust statistical analysis. Pilot studies or power calculations should inform the sample size. For example, a cited study utilized 17 participants per group [1], while another had larger groups of 30-40 subjects [27].

Methodological Protocols for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

A standardized experimental workflow is essential for generating high-quality, reproducible lipidomic data. The following protocol synthesizes best practices from the cited literature.

Sample Collection and Pre-processing

• Collection: Collect fasting blood samples (e.g., 5 mL) into appropriate anticoagulant tubes [1].
• Plasma Separation: Centrifuge blood at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma [1].
• Aliquoting and Storage: Aliquot the upper plasma layer (e.g., 0.2 mL) into cryovials and store immediately at -80°C to prevent lipid degradation [1].
• Quality Control (QC) Pool: Create a QC sample by combining equal volumes of plasma from all study participants. This pooled QC is used to monitor instrument performance throughout the analysis batch.

Lipid Extraction

The methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction method is widely used for its high recovery and minimal matrix effects [1] [27]. 1. Thaw plasma samples on ice. 2. Aliquot 100 μL of plasma into a glass tube. 3. Add 200 μL of cold water and vortex. 4. Add 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol and vortex. 5. Add 800 μL of MTBE, vortex, and sonicate in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes. 6. Incubate at room temperature for 30 minutes to allow phase separation. 7. Centrifuge at 14,000 g at 10°C for 15 minutes. 8. Collect the upper organic phase (which contains the lipids). 9. Evaporate the organic solvent under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas. 10. Reconstitute the dried lipid extract in an appropriate solvent (e.g., 100 μL isopropanol) for MS analysis [1].

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis

Table 2: Representative UHPLC-MS/MS Instrumental Conditions

Parameter	Example Condition 1 [1]	Example Condition 2 [2]
LC System	UHPLC	UHPLC (SCIEX)
Column	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1x100 mm, 1.7 μm)	Kinetex C18 (2.1x100 mm, 2.6 μm)
Mobile Phase A	10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/water	Not Specified
Mobile Phase B	10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/isopropanol	Not Specified
Gradient	Not Specified	Not Specified
MS System	Tandem Mass Spectrometer	Triple Quadrupole (QqQ)
Ionization	ESI	ESI
Scan Mode	Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA) or Untargeted	Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) for targeted
Scan Range	m/z 10-1200 [27]	Not Applicable (MRM)

The following diagram illustrates the core experimental workflow for a plasma untargeted lipidomics study, from cohort selection to data acquisition:

Figure 1: Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics Workflow. This diagram outlines the key stages from participant selection to data generation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Plasma Lipidomics

Category/Item	Specific Examples	Function/Purpose
Solvents (HPLC/MS Grade)	Methanol, Acetonitrile, Isopropanol, MTBE [1] [27]	Lipid extraction, reconstitution, and mobile phase composition.
Additives	Ammonium Formate, Formic Acid [1] [27]	Enhance ionization efficiency in MS and improve chromatographic separation.
Internal Standards	LysoPC(17:0), PC(17:0/17:0), TG(17:0/17:0/17:0) [27]	Correct for variability in extraction and ionization; enable semi-quantification.
Chromatography	UPLC BEH C18 Column [1], Kinetex C18 Column [2]	Separate complex lipid mixtures prior to mass spectrometry analysis.
Mass Spectrometry	Q-Exactive (Orbitrap) [27], Triple Quadrupole [2]	High-resolution identification (Orbitrap) or sensitive quantification (QqQ).

Data Analysis and Pathway Integration

Following data acquisition, raw mass spectrometry files are processed using specialized software (e.g., MS-DIAL, Lipostar) for peak picking, alignment, and lipid identification against databases (e.g., LIPID MAPS).

• Multivariate Statistics: Techniques like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) are employed to visualize group separations and identify lipids contributing most to the variance [1].
• Differential Analysis: Univariate tests (e.g., Student's t-test) combined with fold-change calculations pinpoint significantly altered lipid species between cohorts [1].
• Pathway Analysis: Significantly altered lipids are input into tools like MetaboAnalyst 5.0 to map perturbations onto metabolic pathways. In DM-HUA research, glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism are consistently identified as the most significantly perturbed pathways [1]. The relationship between cohort design, lipidomic findings, and biological insight is summarized below:

Figure 2: From Cohort Design to Biological Insight. A logical flow demonstrating how a well-designed cohort is foundational for generating meaningful biological findings, such as specific pathway disruptions and biomarker candidates.

The path to discovering reliable lipid biomarkers and understanding the intricate lipidomic interplay in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia is paved long before mass spectrometry data is collected. It begins with meticulous cohort selection, precise matching strategies, and standardized experimental protocols. By adhering to the rigorous design considerations outlined in this guide—such as clear diagnostic criteria, careful control of confounders, and robust methodology—researchers can ensure that their findings are not merely reflections of biological noise or design artifacts, but valid and significant contributions to the field. As lipidomics continues its transition from a research tool to a clinical asset, the principles of rigorous study design will remain the bedrock of scientific discovery and future clinical application.

This technical guide details the critical procedures for plasma processing and lipid extraction, framed within untargeted lipidomics research for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia. Standardized protocols are essential for discovering lipid biomarkers and understanding the disrupted metabolic pathways in these conditions.

Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, is a powerful tool for investigating the physiological and pathological mechanisms of metabolic diseases [29]. Dyslipidemia is a hallmark of both diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, and advanced mass spectrometry-based lipidomics can reveal specific lipid signatures that conventional clinical chemistry cannot capture [11] [30].

Studies have identified significant alterations in plasma triglycerides (TGs), diglycerides (DAGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and phosphatidylcholines (PCs) in patients with type 2 diabetes and hyperuricemia [30]. For instance, glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways are significantly perturbed in patients with diabetes mellitus combined with hyperuricemia (DH) [11]. Robust and reproducible sample preparation is the foundation for generating such reliable lipidomic data.

Plasma Collection and Pre-Processing

Proper handling of blood samples from collection to storage is vital to preserve the integrity of the lipidome and prevent artifactual changes.

Blood Collection and Plasma Separation

• Collection: Fasting venous blood should be collected in tubes containing an anticoagulant, such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) [31] [30].
• Centrifugation: Centrifuge blood samples at 1,500–3,000 g for 10–15 minutes at 4°C to separate plasma from cellular components [11] [31] [30].
• Aliquoting: Immediately aliquot the upper plasma layer (typically 0.2 mL) into cryovials to avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles [11].
• Storage: Flash-freeze aliquots and store them at -80°C until analysis [11] [31] [30].

Thawing and Homogenization

When ready for analysis, thaw plasma samples on ice to minimize enzymatic activity. After thawing, vortex the samples thoroughly to ensure homogeneity before aliquoting for lipid extraction [31].

Lipid Extraction Methodologies

Lipid extraction aims to efficiently isolate a wide range of lipid classes from the complex plasma matrix while removing proteins and other interfering compounds. The following table compares three effective extraction methods.

Table 1: Comparison of Plasma Lipid Extraction Methods for Untargeted Lipidomics

Method	Solvent System	Phase Separation	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Suitability for DM/Hyperuricemia Research
1-Butanol/Methanol (B/M) Single-Phase [29]	1-Butanol: Methanol (1:1, v/v)	Single-phase	High recovery (>90%) and reproducibility (%CV < 20%); no toxic chloroform; no drying/reconstitution needed; fast and high-throughput [29].	Less effective for very hydrophobic lipids.	Excellent; correlated well (R²=0.976) with chloroform/method; used in large clinical studies [29].
Methyl-tert-butyl Ether (MTBE) [11] [31]	MTBE: Methanol (varies, e.g., 3:1 v/v)	Two-phase (lipid-rich upper MTBE layer)	Simplified collection of organic phase; avoids toxic chloroform; good lipid coverage [11] [31].	Requires careful handling to avoid interface; requires drying step.	Widely used; applied in DH and Aortic Dissection lipidomic studies [11] [31].
Modified Superabsorbent Polymer (mSAP) [32]	MTBE: Methanol (2:1, v/v)	Solid-phase extraction using SAP beads in spin column	Very fast (~10x faster than MTBE); excellent recovery and reproducibility; low LOD; amenable to automation [32].	Requires specialized SAP beads and spin columns.	Promising for high-throughput clinical validation studies.

Detailed Protocol: 1-Butanol/Methanol Single-Phase Extraction

This protocol is ideal for high-throughput LC ESI-MS/MS analyses in research and clinical laboratories [29].

• Materials: 1-Butanol, Methanol (HPLC grade), Internal Standard mixture.
• Procedure:
  • Pipette 10 µL of plasma into a microcentrifuge tube.
  • Add 100 µL of 1-butanol:methanol (1:1, v/v) mixture containing a cocktail of internal standards appropriate for lipid classes of interest.
  • Vortex the mixture vigorously for a few seconds to ensure complete mixing.
  • Centrifuge the sample at ~14,000 g for 5-10 minutes to pellet any insoluble debris.
  • The resulting supernatant is directly compatible with reverse-phase LC ESI-MS/MS analysis and can be injected without a drying and reconstitution step [29].

Detailed Protocol: MTBE-Based Extraction

A widely used two-phase method that facilitates the removal of hydrophilic contaminants [11] [31].

• Materials: MTBE, Methanol, Water (HPLC grade), Internal Standards.
• Procedure:
  • Transfer 50-100 µL of plasma to a glass tube.
  • Add 300 µL of methanol and vortex for 1 minute.
  • Add 1 mL of MTBE, vortex for 1 minute, and then gently agitate for 1 hour at room temperature.
  • Add 200-300 µL of water to induce phase separation, and vortex again for 1 minute.
  • Centrifuge the sample at 4°C for 10-15 minutes at low speed (e.g., 1,000 g).
  • Collect the upper organic (MTBE) layer, which contains the extracted lipids.
  • Dry the lipid extract under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas.
  • Reconstitute the dried lipids in a solvent compatible with your LC-MS system, such as isopropanol/acetonitrile/water (65:30:5, v/v/v) [31] [32].

Quality Control in Lipidomics Workflow

Incorporating quality control (QC) measures throughout the process is non-negotiable for generating reliable data.

• Internal Standards: Add a cocktail of stable isotope-labeled or non-naturally occurring lipid internal standards as early as possible in the extraction process. These correct for losses during preparation and variations in MS response [33].
• Quality Control (QC) Samples: Prepare a pooled QC sample by combining a small aliquot of every plasma sample in the study. This pooled QC is injected repeatedly at the beginning of the analysis to condition the system and then at regular intervals throughout the batch to monitor instrument stability and reproducibility [33].
• Blank Samples: Include solvent blanks to identify and filter out background signals and contaminants originating from solvents, tubes, or the instrumentation itself [33].

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow from sample collection to data acquisition.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents and Materials for Plasma Lipid Extraction

Reagent / Material	Function / Purpose	Technical Notes
Internal Standards (IS)	Correct for extraction efficiency and MS variability; enable semi-quantification.	Use a cocktail covering major lipid classes (e.g., PC, PE, SM, TG, Cer) [31] [33].
1-Butanol & Methanol	Primary extraction solvents for single-phase method.	A 1:1 (v/v) ratio efficiently extracts polar and non-polar lipids with high recovery [29].
Methyl-tert-butyl Ether (MTBE)	Primary organic solvent for two-phase extraction.	Forms a lipid-rich upper phase, simplifying collection and avoiding toxic chloroform [11] [31].
Isopropanol (IPA)	Reconstitution solvent; protein precipitant.	IPA/ACN/H₂O mixtures are common for resuspending dried lipids prior to LC-MS [31] [34].
Ammonium Formate/Acetate	Mobile phase additive for LC-MS.	Promotes ionization and improves chromatographic separation [11] [31].
Superabsorbent Polymer (SAP) Beads	Solid-phase medium for mSAP method.	Absorbs aqueous phase, allowing lipid elution with organic solvent in a spin column format [32].

The choice of plasma processing and lipid extraction protocol directly impacts the coverage, accuracy, and reproducibility of untargeted lipidomics data. The 1-butanol/methanol single-phase and MTBE two-phase methods are both robust, well-validated approaches suitable for investigating the lipidomic perturbations in complex metabolic conditions like diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia. Adherence to standardized protocols and rigorous quality control is paramount for generating biologically meaningful and translatable findings that can advance our understanding of disease mechanisms and contribute to biomarker discovery.

Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) represents a cornerstone technology in advanced analytical science, particularly in the field of untargeted lipidomics. This sophisticated hyphenated technique combines superior chromatographic separation capabilities with exceptional mass detection sensitivity and specificity [35] [36]. In the context of investigating complex metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA), UHPLC-MS/MS enables researchers to comprehensively characterize the plasma lipidome, revealing subtle metabolic perturbations that underlie disease pathophysiology [11] [37]. The application of this technology has proven invaluable for identifying lipid biomarkers and elucidating disrupted metabolic pathways, providing insights that could not be captured through conventional clinical and blood biomarkers alone [11].

The fundamental advantage of UHPLC-MS/MS over traditional HPLC systems lies in its operation at significantly higher pressures (up to 1000 bar or more), utilization of columns packed with smaller particles (typically <2 μm), and consequent enhancements in resolution, sensitivity, and speed [35] [38]. These technical improvements are particularly crucial for lipidomic analyses where the chemical diversity and wide concentration range of lipid molecules in biological matrices present substantial analytical challenges [39] [40]. The integration of UHPLC with tandem mass spectrometry creates a powerful platform for global lipid profiling, allowing for the detection and quantification of hundreds to thousands of lipid species in a single analytical run [11] [40].

Core Principles of UHPLC-MS/MS

Chromatographic Separation Fundamentals

The governing principle of UHPLC separation is based on the fundamental relationship between column packing particle size and chromatographic efficiency. As particle size decreases, efficiency and resolution increase, allowing for superior separations per unit time [35]. This relationship is formally described by the Van Deemter equation, which models band broadening and establishes that the efficiency of the chromatographic process is inversely proportional to particle size [35]. The practical manifestation of this principle is the ability of UHPLC to generate sharper peaks, higher resolution, and reduced analysis times compared to conventional HPLC, while also consuming less solvent [35] [38].

The separation process in UHPLC occurs through the interaction of analytes between a stationary phase (column packing material) and a mobile phase (eluent). Lipid molecules, with their diverse chemical properties, are separated based on characteristics such as polarity, chain length, and degree of unsaturation [40]. In reversed-phase chromatography, which is commonly employed in lipidomics, non-polar lipids are retained longer than their polar counterparts. The UHPLC systems provide precise control over the chromatographic conditions, including mobile phase composition, flow rate, and temperature, enabling optimized separation of complex lipid mixtures from biological samples [11] [40].

Mass Spectrometry Detection Fundamentals

Mass spectrometry functions by generating gas-phase ions from analytes, separating these ions according to their mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), and detecting them to provide qualitative and quantitative information [35] [36]. In the context of UHPLC-MS/MS for lipidomics, the mass spectrometer serves as a highly sensitive and selective detector for the separated lipid species emerging from the UHPLC system [40].

The tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) capability is particularly valuable for structural elucidation and confident identification of lipid molecules. Through controlled fragmentation experiments, MS/MS provides information about the molecular structure of lipids, including fatty acyl chain composition and positional distribution [36] [40]. Different mass analyzers offer complementary capabilities: triple quadrupole (QQQ) instruments provide high sensitivity in targeted multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) modes; time-of-flight (TOF) analyzers deliver high mass accuracy and resolution for untargeted analysis; and Orbitrap technology combines high resolution with accurate mass measurement and multi-stage fragmentation capabilities [36] [40]. The choice of mass analyzer depends on the specific analytical requirements, whether for targeted quantification or comprehensive untargeted lipid profiling [36].

UHPLC System Components and Operation

Chromatographic Column Technology

The heart of any UHPLC system is the chromatographic column, where the actual separation of compounds occurs. Modern UHPLC columns are engineered to withstand extreme pressures (up to 1000 bar) while providing high separation efficiency [35]. Several column technologies have been developed to address different analytical challenges:

• Charged Surface Hybrid (CSH) Technology: These columns incorporate low-level surface charge on 1.7 μm particles, improving peak shape and loading capacity, particularly for basic compounds under low-pH, weak-ionic-strength mobile phase conditions [35].
• Ethylene-Bridged Hybrid (BEH) Technology: BEH columns feature a hybrid organic-inorganic material that provides enhanced pH stability (typically pH 1-12), improved efficiency, and pressure tolerance. The BEH C18 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) is widely used in lipidomic applications [11] [35].
• High-Strength Silica (HSS) Technology: HSS particles are specifically designed for UHPLC separations, offering mechanical stability at high pressures. HSS T3 columns are particularly suited for retaining small, water-soluble, and polar organic molecules [35].

In lipidomics, the column choice significantly impacts the separation of different lipid classes. For comprehensive lipid profiling, C18 columns operated in reversed-phase mode are most commonly employed, providing excellent separation of diverse lipid species based on their hydrophobicity [11] [40].

Mobile Phase Delivery and Gradient Formation

UHPLC systems employ high-pressure binary or quaternary pumps to deliver precise, pulse-free mobile phase gradients at flow rates typically ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 mL/min for columns with 2.1 mm internal diameter [11] [37] [40]. The formation of reproducible gradients is critical for achieving consistent retention times and reliable lipid identification.

For lipidomic analyses, the mobile phase typically consists of a water-based solvent (Eluent A) and an organic solvent (Eluent B). Common compositions include:

• Eluent A: 10 mM ammonium formate in water [11] or 0.1% formic acid in water [37]
• Eluent B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile-isopropanol solution [11] or methanol [37]

The gradient program is carefully optimized to achieve comprehensive separation of lipid classes, from polar phospholipids to non-polar cholesteryl esters and triglycerides [40]. A typical gradient for lipidomics might start at 35-40% organic phase, increase linearly to 100% over 7-15 minutes, and maintain at 100% for several minutes to ensure elution of highly non-polar lipids [11] [40].

Modern UHPLC systems feature automated sample managers capable of precise microliter-volume injections while maintaining samples at controlled temperatures (typically 4-10°C) to ensure stability [11] [40]. The injection system must introduce samples without significant band broadening or carryover between analyses.

Temperature control is critical for reproducible UHPLC separations. Column ovens maintain stable temperatures, typically between 40-60°C for lipidomic analyses, to ensure consistent retention times and optimal separation efficiency [40] [38]. Recent advancements include vacuum jacketed columns (VJC) that reduce undesirable radial temperature gradients across the column diameter, thereby preserving separation efficiency [38].

Mass Spectrometry System Components and Operation

The interface between the UHPLC system and the mass spectrometer is a critical component where analytes are converted into gas-phase ions. The most common ionization techniques in lipidomics include:

• Electrospray Ionization (ESI): This soft ionization technique is the workhorse for lipidomic applications [35] [36]. ESI operates by applying a high voltage (typically 3-4 kV) to the LC eluent as it passes through a capillary, creating a fine aerosol of charged droplets. As the solvent evaporates, charged analyte molecules are released into the gas phase. ESI is particularly well-suited for lipid analysis because it efficiently ionizes a wide range of lipid classes with minimal fragmentation [40].
• Atmospheric Pressure Chemical Ionization (APCI): APCI employs a corona discharge to ionize the analyte molecules through chemical reactions at atmospheric pressure. While less commonly used for phospholipid analysis, APCI can be effective for less polar lipids [36].
• Atmospheric Pressure Photoionization (APPI): APPI uses photons for ionization and can complement ESI and APCI for certain lipid classes [36].

In lipidomics, both positive and negative ionization modes are typically employed to comprehensively cover different lipid classes. Phospholipids such as phosphatidylcholines and sphingomyelins ionize well in positive mode, while acidic phospholipids like phosphatidylinositols and free fatty acids are better detected in negative mode [39] [40].

Mass Analyzers and Their Applications

Different mass analyzers offer unique capabilities for lipidomic analysis:

Table 1: Mass Analyzers in Lipidomics

Analyzer Type	Key Characteristics	Common Applications in Lipidomics
Triple Quadrupole (QQQ)	High sensitivity, excellent quantitative capabilities, MRM functionality	Targeted analysis of specific lipid species, quantitative studies [35] [36]
Quadrupole-Time-of-Flight (Q-TOF)	High resolution, accurate mass measurement, MS/MS capability	Untargeted lipidomics, lipid identification, discovery studies [36] [40]
Orbitrap	Very high resolution and mass accuracy, multi-stage MS^n	Structural elucidation, identification of novel lipids, complex mixture analysis [36] [40]
Ion Trap (IT)	Trapping and sequential fragmentation, MS^n capability	Structural characterization, fragmentation studies [36]

The choice of mass analyzer depends on the specific analytical goals. For untargeted lipidomic profiling in diabetes and hyperuricemia research, Q-TOF and Orbitrap instruments are particularly valuable due to their high mass accuracy and resolution, which facilitate confident lipid identification [11] [37].

Detection and Data Acquisition Modes

Modern mass spectrometers employ highly sensitive detectors such as electron multipliers, which amplify the signal generated by incoming ions through a cascade of secondary emissions [35]. These detectors provide low noise, high sensitivity, and typical gain factors of 10^6, enabling detection of lipids present at very low concentrations in complex biological samples [35].

For lipidomic analysis, several data acquisition modes are commonly employed:

• Full Scan Mode: Provides a comprehensive overview of all ionizable lipids within a specified m/z range, essential for untargeted lipidomics [36].
• Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM): Monitors specific precursor-product ion transitions for targeted quantification of known lipids with high sensitivity [39].
• Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA): Automatically selects precursor ions from a survey scan for subsequent MS/MS fragmentation, useful for lipid identification [36].
• Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA): Fragments all ions within predefined m/z windows, providing comprehensive MS/MS data without precursor ion selection [36].

In diabetes and hyperuricemia research, untargeted approaches typically employ full scan and data-dependent MS/MS to comprehensively characterize the lipidome, while targeted methods using MRM are applied for validation and quantitative analysis of specific lipid biomarkers [11].

Integrated UHPLC-MS/MS Workflow for Lipidomics

The complete UHPLC-MS/MS workflow for plasma untargeted lipidomics involves multiple coordinated steps from sample preparation to data analysis. The following diagram illustrates this comprehensive process:

Workflow for Plasma Lipidomics Analysis

This integrated workflow has been successfully applied in research on diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, where it has enabled the identification of distinct lipid signatures associated with these metabolic disorders [11].

Application in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia Research

Experimental Design and Methodology

In a recent study investigating lipid metabolic profiles in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and diabetes mellitus combined with hyperuricemia (DH), researchers employed UHPLC-MS/MS to characterize plasma lipidomes [11]. The experimental design included:

• Study Population: 17 patients with DM, 17 patients with DH, and 17 healthy controls matched by sex and age [11].
• Sample Collection: Fasting blood samples were collected and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to obtain plasma [11].
• Sample Preparation: 100 μL of plasma was subjected to liquid-liquid extraction using methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and methanol. After sonication, centrifugation, and phase separation, the upper organic phase was collected, dried under nitrogen, and reconstituted for analysis [11].
• Quality Control: Pooled quality control samples were analyzed throughout the sequence to monitor instrument performance and reproducibility [11].

UHPLC-MS/MS Analytical Conditions

The specific instrumental conditions used in the diabetes-hyperuricemia lipidomics study were:

Table 2: UHPLC-MS/MS Conditions for Plasma Lipidomics

Parameter	Specification
UHPLC System	Ultra performance liquid chromatography system
Column	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm)
Mobile Phase A	10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile solution in water
Mobile Phase B	10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile isopropanol solution
Gradient Program	Not specified in detail, but typical runs 10-20 minutes
Mass Spectrometer	Tandem mass spectrometry system
Ionization Mode	Electrospray ionization (ESI)
Data Acquisition	Untargeted lipidomic profiling

Using this methodology, researchers identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses, demonstrating the comprehensiveness of UHPLC-MS/MS for plasma lipidomics [11].

Key Findings in Diabetes and Hyperuricemia Research

The application of UHPLC-MS/MS in diabetes and hyperuricemia research has revealed significant alterations in lipid metabolism:

• Differential Lipid Species: Comparison of DH patients versus healthy controls identified 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites, including 13 triglycerides (TGs), 10 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and 7 phosphatidylcholines (PCs) that were significantly upregulated, while one phosphatidylinositol (PI) was downregulated [11].
• Disturbed Metabolic Pathways: Multivariate statistical analysis revealed that glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism were the most significantly perturbed pathways in DH patients [11].
• Distinct Lipidomic Profiles: Principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) demonstrated clear separation among the DH, DM, and healthy control groups, confirming distinct lipidomic profiles associated with these metabolic conditions [11].

Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Successful UHPLC-MS/MS analysis in lipidomics requires carefully selected reagents and materials. The following table outlines key research reagent solutions for plasma untargeted lipidomics:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Plasma Lipidomics

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Examples/Specifications
Chromatography Columns	Separation of lipid molecules	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) [11]
Extraction Solvents	Lipid extraction from plasma	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, chloroform [11] [40]
Mobile Phase Additives	Enhance ionization, control pH	Ammonium formate, formic acid, ammonium acetate [11] [37]
Internal Standards	Quantification, quality control	Stable isotope-labeled lipids (e.g., PC(17:0/17:0), TG(17:0/17:0/17:0)) [40]
Quality Control Materials	Monitor instrument performance	Pooled plasma samples, standard reference materials [11]
Mass Calibration Solutions	Mass accuracy calibration	Reserpine, standard calibration mixtures [40]

The selection of appropriate reagents and their quality significantly impacts the reliability and reproducibility of lipidomic analyses. Using high-purity solvents, properly prepared additive solutions, and well-characterized internal standards is essential for generating high-quality data [11] [40].

Method Validation and Quality Assurance

Robust UHPLC-MS/MS methods require comprehensive validation to ensure data reliability. Key validation parameters include:

• Specificity: The method should be able to differentiate between analytes and potential interferences [41].
• Linearity: Demonstrated through correlation coefficients ≥0.999 for calibration curves [41].
• Precision: Expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD), with values <5.0% indicating acceptable method precision [41].
• Accuracy: Typically assessed through recovery experiments, with acceptable rates often ranging from 77-160% depending on the analyte and matrix [41].
• Sensitivity: Determined by limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ), which should be established for the target analytes [41].

In untargeted lipidomics, quality assurance also involves monitoring system stability, retention time stability, mass accuracy, and intensity stability throughout the analytical sequence [11]. The inclusion of quality control samples at regular intervals throughout the analysis sequence is essential for detecting technical variations and ensuring data quality [11].

UHPLC-MS/MS instrumentation represents a powerful platform for comprehensive lipidomic analysis in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia research. The combination of ultra-high-performance chromatographic separation with sophisticated mass spectrometric detection enables researchers to characterize complex lipid metabolic alterations associated with these metabolic disorders. Through the identification of lipid biomarkers and disturbed metabolic pathways, UHPLC-MS/MS provides valuable insights into the pathophysiology of diabetes and hyperuricemia, potentially contributing to improved diagnosis, risk stratification, and therapeutic development. As instrumentation continues to advance, with improvements in sensitivity, resolution, and throughput, UHPLC-MS/MS will undoubtedly remain a cornerstone technology in metabolic disease research.

Untargeted lipidomics by high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is an indispensable tool for discovering novel metabolic disruptions in complex diseases. The investigation of comorbid conditions, such as Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and Hyperuricemia (HUA), presents a particular challenge and opportunity, requiring analytical methods that are both comprehensive and quantitatively robust. The choice of data acquisition mode is pivotal, directly influencing the depth of lipid coverage, accuracy of identification, and the potential to uncover disease-specific biomarkers. This technical guide explores the core acquisition strategies of positive/negative ion switching and MS/MS fragmentation, framing them within the specific analytical challenges of plasma untargeted lipidomics for diabetes and hyperuricemia research. We detail experimental protocols, provide quantitative comparisons, and visualize workflows to equip researchers with the knowledge to implement these methods effectively, thereby advancing the discovery of pathogenic mechanisms and diagnostic lipid signatures.

Core Data Acquisition Methodologies in Lipidomics

Polarity Switching in Untargeted Lipidomics

Lipids are structurally diverse, with different classes ionizing efficiently in either positive or negative electrospray ionization (ESI) mode. To capture a broad spectrum of lipids in a single injection, polarity switching has been developed as a key technique.

• Principle and Workflow: This method allows the mass spectrometer to rapidly alternate between positive and negative ionization polarities within the same LC-MS/MS run. A typical implementation on an Orbitrap instrument involves a cycle beginning with a full MS1 scan in positive mode, followed by data-dependent MS/MS (dd-MS2) scans of the top N most intense ions from the positive mode survey scan. The instrument then immediately switches to negative mode, acquiring a full MS1 scan and subsequent dd-MS2 scans before switching back to positive mode to repeat the cycle [42].
• Performance and Trade-offs: Research demonstrates that polarity switching performs robustly in untargeted lipidomics. It captures >95% of the features that would be detected by running samples in separate positive and negative modes, with a low overlap (around 4.1%) between features detected in the two modes, underscoring the necessity of both for comprehensive coverage [43]. The primary trade-off is an increased MS cycle time, which can result in fewer data points across a chromatographic peak. This may lead to a slight increase in the coefficient of variation (CV) for some lipids compared to separate acquisitions, but the values typically remain acceptable for untargeted screening (e.g., mean CVs of 17.9% and 12.2% reported for positive and negative modes, respectively) [43].
• Application in Disease Research: This technique is highly effective for profiling lipids from diverse biological sources. One study utilizing a 30-minute LC-MS/MS platform with polarity switching was able to profile over 1,500 unique lipid species from human blood plasma and identify up to 18 main lipid classes and 66 subclasses from cell and tissue samples [42] [44]. This breadth is crucial for uncovering complex lipid disturbances in conditions like diabetes and hyperuricemia.

MS/MS Fragmentation Acquisition Modes

Structural characterization of lipids relies on fragmentation spectra. The two primary acquisition modes for obtaining MS/MS data are Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA) and Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA), each with distinct advantages for lipid annotation.

• Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA): In DDA, the instrument performs a full MS1 "survey" scan and then automatically selects the most intense precursor ions (e.g., the top 10 or 20) for subsequent fragmentation. DDA produces clean, interpretable MS/MS spectra where fragment ions can be unambiguously linked to their precursor [45] [46]. A key limitation is its bias toward high-abundance ions, which can cause it to miss lower-intensity but biologically important lipids. Its reproducibility across runs can also be variable [45].
• Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA): In DIA, the instrument fragments all ions within a predefined, wide m/z window (e.g., 20-25 Da) without prior selection. This occurs sequentially across the entire m/z range of interest. DIA provides more uniform fragmentation coverage across all detectable ions, regardless of abundance, leading to superior reproducibility and quantitative accuracy [45] [47]. The main challenge is the complexity of the resulting multiplexed MS/MS spectra, where fragments from multiple co-isolated precursors are mixed, requiring advanced bioinformatics software for deconvolution [46] [47].

Table 1: Comparison of Key MS/MS Acquisition Modes for Lipidomics.

Feature	Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA)	Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA)
Principle	Selects & fragments top N most intense ions from MS1 scan	Fragments all ions in sequential, wide m/z windows
MS/MS Spectrum Quality	Clean, precursor-fragment link clear [45]	Multiplexed; requires deconvolution [46]
Coverage Bias	Biased towards high-abundance ions [45]	More comprehensive and uniform [47]
Reproducibility	Can be lower across replicates [45]	Excellent reproducibility [45]
Ideal for	Lipid identification, spectral library generation [42]	Large-scale cohort studies, biomarker quantification [45]

Application in DM and HUA Lipidomics

The application of these advanced lipidomic techniques is revealing specific lipid metabolic disruptions in DM and HUA.

Experimental Workflow for Plasma Lipidomics

A typical research workflow for investigating lipidomics in DM and HUA, as exemplified in recent studies, involves several critical stages [11]:

• Sample Collection and Preparation: Fasting blood plasma is collected from carefully phenotyped cohorts (e.g., DM patients, DH patients, and healthy controls). A robust liquid-liquid extraction, such as the methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) method, is employed to isolate a wide range of lipids [42] [11].
• Chromatographic Separation: Lipids are separated using reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC), typically on a C18 column, with a gradient of organic solvents (e.g., acetonitrile and isopropanol) to resolve lipid species based on their hydrophobicity [42] [11].
• Mass Spectrometric Analysis: The separated lipids are analyzed using an HRMS platform (e.g., Q-Exactive Orbitrap) equipped with an ESI source. The data acquisition often employs positive/negative polarity switching in combination with DDA to achieve broad coverage and confirm lipid identities via MS/MS [42] [11].
• Data Processing and Statistical Analysis: Acquired data is processed using specialized software (e.g., LipidSearch) for peak alignment, lipid identification based on accurate mass and MS/MS spectra, and quantification. Multivariate statistics like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) are used to identify lipids that differ significantly between patient groups [42] [11].
• Pathway Analysis: Differentially abundant lipids are subjected to pathway analysis using platforms like MetaboAnalyst to pinpoint disturbed metabolic pathways, such as glycerophospholipid metabolism [11].

Figure 1: A generalized experimental workflow for untargeted plasma lipidomics, applicable to the study of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia.

Key Lipidomic Findings in DM and HUA Research

Implementing these protocols has yielded specific insights into the lipid pathology of DM and HUA. A study comparing DH, DM, and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) groups identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses [11]. Multivariate analysis revealed a distinct separation between these groups, confirming unique lipidomic profiles.

Table 2: Key Lipid Alterations Identified in Diabetes Mellitus with Hyperuricemia (DH).

Lipid Category	Representative Lipid Species	Trend in DH vs. Control	Biological Relevance
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2); TAG(53:0) [11] [48]	▲ Upregulated	Energy storage; Associated with insulin resistance & HUA risk.
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1) [11]; PC(16:0/20:5) [48]	▲ Upregulated	Membrane integrity; choline metabolism; key players in glycerophospholipid metabolism pathway.
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4) [11]	▲ Upregulated	Membrane fluidity; ether-linked PEs are plasmalogens with antioxidant functions.
Diacylglycerols (DAGs)	DAG(16:0/22:5); DAG(18:1/22:6) [48]	▲ Upregulated	Lipid signaling molecules; can promote insulin resistance.
Lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC)	LPC(20:2) [48]	▼ Downregulated	Signaling lipids; generally associated with anti-inflammatory effects.

Pathway analysis of these differential lipids consistently points to glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism as the most significantly perturbed pathways in DH patients, providing a mechanistic focus for future research [11]. Furthermore, a large-scale epidemiological study found that these HUA-associated lipids, particularly TGs and DAGs, are correlated with fatty acids from the de novo lipogenesis (DNL) pathway, suggesting a shared upstream metabolic driver [48].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Figure 2: Essential components of the lipidomics toolkit, from instrumentation to reagents and software.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Plasma Lipidomics.

Item	Function	Example
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Liquid-liquid extraction for isolating lipids from plasma matrix; MTBE is less toxic than chloroform alternatives.	Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE); Chloroform: Methanol (2:1) [42] [11]
Deuterated Internal Standards	Added to samples prior to extraction to correct for losses during preparation and ion suppression during MS analysis, enabling more accurate quantification.	Commercially available mixes covering major lipid classes (e.g., d₇-PC, d₅-TG) [6]
LC Mobile Phase Additives	Volatile salts added to the mobile phase to promote consistent ionization and improve peak shape in positive/negative mode.	Ammonium formate; Ammonium acetate [11]
Spectral Libraries & Databases	Reference databases used to match accurate mass and MS/MS fragmentation patterns for lipid identification.	LIPID MAPS, HMDB [42] [18]
Data Processing Software	Specialized software for automated peak picking, alignment, lipid identification, and relative quantification.	LipidSearch [42], MS-DIAL [18]

The integration of positive/negative ion switching with advanced MS/MS fragmentation modes like DDA and DIA forms the technical foundation of modern untargeted lipidomics. When applied to the study of complex metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia, these methods powerfully reveal the intricate alterations in the lipidome. The consistent identification of disturbed glycerolipid and glycerophospholipid metabolism across studies highlights key pathogenic pathways. As lipidomic technologies continue to evolve towards greater robustness and throughput, and as bioinformatics tools become more sophisticated, the translation of these lipid signatures into clinically actionable biomarkers for early diagnosis and patient stratification becomes an increasingly attainable goal.

In plasma untargeted lipidomics, the simultaneous quantification of hundreds to thousands of lipid species generates complex, high-dimensional datasets. Analyzing these datasets to extract meaningful biological insights, particularly in complex conditions like diabetes mellitus (DM) combined with hyperuricemia (DH), requires robust multivariate statistical methods [1]. These techniques are essential for identifying subtle lipid alterations that may serve as potential biomarkers or reveal disrupted metabolic pathways, thereby advancing our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of comorbid conditions [49] [50].

This technical guide provides an in-depth examination of three critical components in the lipidomics analysis workflow: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) for unsupervised data exploration and quality control, Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) for supervised group separation and biomarker discovery, and Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) selection for identifying the most influential lipid species driving group separations. When applied within a study investigating plasma lipidomic profiles in DM and DH, these methods form a powerful pipeline for transforming raw spectral data into biologically interpretable results [51] [1].

Theoretical Foundations of Multivariate Methods

Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

PCA is an unsupervised multivariate statistical analysis method that strategically employs orthogonal transformations to convert potentially correlated variables into a set of linearly uncorrelated variables called principal components [51]. This approach effectively compresses high-dimensional lipidomics data into a reduced set of components that capture the greatest variance in the dataset.

The algorithm works by identifying new orthogonal axes (principal components) ordered by the amount of variance they explain from the original data. The first principal component (PC1) captures the largest possible variance, with each succeeding component capturing the next highest variance under the constraint of being orthogonal to the preceding components [51]. Mathematically, given a mean-centered data matrix X with dimensions n×p (where n is the number of samples and p is the number of lipid variables), PCA decomposes X as follows:

X = TP^T + E

Where T is the scores matrix (projections of samples onto principal components), P is the loadings matrix (directions of maximum variance), and E is the residual matrix. In lipidomics, the scores reveal sample patterns and groupings, while the loadings indicate which lipid variables contribute most to these patterns.

Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA)

OPLS-DA is a supervised discriminant analysis statistical method that integrates orthogonal signal correction (OSC) with Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) [51]. Unlike PCA, which works without group information, OPLS-DA utilizes known class membership to maximize separation between predefined groups while separating systematic variation into predictive and orthogonal components.

The algorithm decomposes the lipid data matrix X into three distinct parts:

X = TpPp^T + ToPo^T + E

Where TpPp^T represents the predictive component directly related to class discrimination, ToPo^T represents the orthogonal components uncorrelated with class separation (often representing biological or technical noise), and E is the residual matrix [51] [52]. This separation is particularly valuable in lipidomics studies where biological variation unrelated to the study question (e.g., batch effects, inter-individual variation) might obscure the relevant group differences.

Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) Selection

The VIP metric quantifies the contribution of each variable to the OPLS-DA model. VIP scores measure the influence of every lipid species on the model's predictive ability for both X (lipid data) and Y (group classification). Lipids with VIP scores >1.0 are generally considered statistically influential, though higher thresholds (often VIP >1.5 or 2.0) may be applied for more selective biomarker identification [51].

The VIP score for the j-th variable is calculated as:

VIPj = √[p × Σ(k=1)^(h)(SSk × (wjk/||wk||)^2) / Σ(k=1)^(h)SS_k]

Where p is the total number of variables, h is the number of components, SSk_ is the sum of squares explained by the k-th component, wjk_ is the weight value for variable j in component k, and ||wk||_ is the Euclidean norm of wk_. This calculation gives proportionally greater weight to variables that strongly correlate with the class separation across multiple components.

Comparative Analysis of Multivariate Methods

Table 1: Comparison of PCA, PLS-DA, and OPLS-DA for lipidomics analysis

Feature	PCA	PLS-DA	OPLS-DA
Type	Unsupervised	Supervised	Supervised
Primary Function	Data exploration, outlier detection, quality control	Classification, feature selection	Improved classification with separated variation
Advantages	Simple visualization, no overfitting, identifies sample patterns	Forces separation based on class, identifies differential lipids	Filters unrelated variation, improved interpretability
Disadvantages	Cannot directly identify differential lipids	May be affected by noise and unrelated variation	Higher computational complexity, risk of overfitting
Risk of Overfitting	Low	Medium	Medium-High
Application in Workflow	Initial exploration	Differential analysis	Refined differential analysis

Table 2: Statistical properties and implementation considerations

Aspect	PCA	OPLS-DA
Data Structure	Single data matrix (X)	Two-block structure (X and Y)
Variance Separation	Captures maximum variance	Separates predictive and orthogonal variance
Model Validation	Cross-validation not typically required	Internal cross-validation crucial
Data Preprocessing	Requires normalization and scaling	Requires normalization and scaling
Visualization	Scores plot (sample patterns), Loadings plot (variable contributions)	Scores plot (group separation), S-plot (VIP identification)

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Integrated Analytical Workflow for Lipidomics

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for multivariate analysis in untargeted lipidomics studies, from sample preparation through biological interpretation:

Sample Preparation and LC-MS Analysis

Plasma sample collection follows standardized protocols to ensure analytical reproducibility. In a recent DH study, fasting blood samples were collected in anticoagulant tubes and centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature [1]. The upper plasma layer (0.2 mL) was aliquoted and stored at -80°C until analysis.

Lipid extraction typically employs methanol/MTBE-based methods: 100 μL plasma is mixed with 200 μL ice-cold water, 240 μL pre-cooled methanol, and 800 μL methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) [1]. After vortexing, sonication in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes, and room temperature incubation for 30 minutes, samples are centrifuged at 14,000×g for 15 minutes at 10°C. The upper organic phase containing lipids is collected and dried under nitrogen gas.

LC-MS analysis utilizes reversed-phase chromatography (e.g., Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column, 2.1×100 mm, 1.7 μm) with mobile phases consisting of acetonitrile-water (A) and acetonitrile-isopropanol (B), both containing 10 mM ammonium formate [1]. Gradient elution separates lipid species prior to mass spectrometric detection using high-resolution instruments (e.g., Q-TOF mass spectrometers). Quality control (QC) samples prepared from pooled aliquots of all samples are analyzed throughout the sequence to monitor instrument stability.

Data Preprocessing Pipeline

Raw LC-MS data requires extensive preprocessing before multivariate analysis:

• Format conversion: Vendor-specific raw files are converted to open formats (e.g., mzXML) using tools like ProteoWizard [33].
• Peak detection and alignment: Software packages (e.g., XCMS) identify chromatographic peaks and align them across samples [33].
• Missing value imputation: Metabolites with >20-50% missing values are typically removed, with remaining missing values imputed using methods appropriate for the missingness mechanism (MCAR, MAR, or MNAR) [50].
• Normalization and scaling: Data normalization corrects for technical variation using internal standards or quality control-based methods (e.g., EigenMS, RUV) [50]. Log-transformation reduces heteroscedasticity, and Pareto or unit variance scaling adjusts for large intensity ranges between lipid species.

PCA Implementation for Quality Control

PCA serves as a critical quality control step in lipidomics workflows. The following protocol outlines its implementation:

• Input preparation: Format the preprocessed lipid intensity data as a samples × variables matrix.
• Model building: Apply PCA to the mean-centered and scaled data, retaining sufficient components to capture >70-80% of total variance.
• Visualization: Generate scores plots (e.g., PC1 vs. PC2) to identify outliers and assess grouping of quality control samples.
• Interpretation: Examine loadings to identify lipid species driving the observed sample patterns.

Tight clustering of QC samples in PCA scores plots indicates good analytical reproducibility, while biological replicates should cluster more tightly than experimental groups [51]. Samples falling outside the 95% confidence ellipse in PCA scores plots are considered potential outliers and may require exclusion from subsequent analysis.

OPLS-DA Modeling and Validation

OPLS-DA model construction requires a predefined Y matrix specifying class membership (e.g., healthy=0, DH=1). The algorithm is implemented as follows:

• Data splitting: Divide data into training and test sets (e.g., 70/30 split) to enable external validation.
• Model training: Build the OPLS-DA model using the training set, optimizing the number of orthogonal components through cross-validation.
• Model validation: Assess model performance using both internal (cross-validation) and external (test set) validation.
• Permutation testing: Perform 100-200 random permutations of class labels to establish the statistical significance of the model (p-value) and ensure it did not arise by chance.

A valid OPLS-DA model should show clear separation between groups in the predictive component (x-axis) while minimizing group separation in orthogonal components (y-axis) [52]. The model quality is typically evaluated using R²X (cumulative) and Q² (cumulative) parameters, with Q² >0.5 generally indicating good predictive ability.

VIP Selection and Biomarker Identification

VIP analysis follows OPLS-DA model establishment:

• Calculate VIP scores: Compute VIP scores for all lipid variables in the validated OPLS-DA model.
• Apply threshold: Select lipids with VIP scores >1.0 (or more stringent thresholds like >1.5 or 2.0) as potential biomarkers.
• Univariate validation: Confirm VIP-selected lipids using univariate statistics (e.g., t-tests with FDR correction, fold-change analysis).
• Biological interpretation: Map significant lipids to metabolic pathways using databases like KEGG and LipidMaps.

In DH research, this approach successfully identified 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites, including 13 triglycerides (TGs), 10 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and 7 phosphatidylcholines (PCs) that were significantly upregulated in DH compared to healthy controls [1].

OPLS-DA Interpretation Framework

The following diagram illustrates the key components of OPLS-DA analysis and their interpretation for lipid biomarker discovery:

Table 3: Essential software tools for multivariate analysis in lipidomics

Tool Name	Application	Key Features	Access
SIMCA	Multivariate data analysis	PCA, OPLS-DA, model validation, visualization	Commercial software
MetaboAnalyst 5.0	Comprehensive metabolomics analysis	Statistical analysis, pathway mapping, biomarker analysis	Web-based platform
XCMS	LC-MS data preprocessing	Peak detection, alignment, retention time correction	R/Bioconductor package
mixOmics	Multivariate analysis	PCA, OPLS-DA, integration with other omics	R/Bioconductor package

Table 4: Experimental reagents and materials for lipidomics

Reagent/Material	Specification	Function in Workflow
UPLC System	Waters ACQUITY UPLC with C18 column	Chromatographic separation of lipid species
Mass Spectrometer	High-resolution Q-TOF instrument	Accurate mass detection and quantification
Extraction Solvent	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)/methanol	Lipid extraction from plasma samples
Internal Standards	Isotope-labeled lipid standards	Normalization and quality control

Application in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia Research

In a recent study investigating lipidomic alterations in diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia (DH), the PCA-OPLS-DA-VIP workflow demonstrated significant utility [1]. PCA initially revealed distinct clustering patterns between DH, DM-only, and healthy control groups, confirming fundamental lipidomic differences. Subsequent OPLS-DA modeling provided enhanced separation between groups, with the predictive component clearly distinguishing DH patients from both DM and healthy controls.

VIP analysis applied to the validated OPLS-DA models identified 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites in DH patients compared to healthy controls [1]. The most significantly altered lipid classes included triglycerides (TGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and phosphatidylcholines (PCs). Pathway analysis of these VIP-selected lipids revealed predominant disruptions in glycerophospholipid metabolism (impact value: 0.199) and glycerolipid metabolism (impact value: 0.014), highlighting the central role of these pathways in DH pathophysiology [1].

When comparing DH versus DM groups, 12 differential lipids were identified, predominantly enriched in the same core pathways. These findings suggest that hyperuricemia complicating diabetes induces specific lipid alterations beyond diabetes alone, potentially revealing novel mechanistic insights into this metabolic comorbidity.

Methodological Considerations and Best Practices

Avoiding Overfitting and Ensuring Validation

Overfitting represents a significant risk in supervised multivariate analysis, particularly with high-dimensional lipidomics data where variables far exceed samples [51]. Several strategies mitigate this risk:

• Cross-validation: Implement rigorous internal cross-validation (e.g., 7-fold) during model building to optimize component number and assess predictive ability.
• Permutation testing: Perform 100-200 random permutations of class labels to generate a null distribution of model performance metrics (R²Y, Q²). A valid model should have significantly higher Q² than permuted models (typically p<0.05).
• External validation: Validate models using independent sample sets not included in model training.
• Univariate confirmation: Verify multivariate findings with univariate statistics (e.g., ANOVA with FDR correction) to ensure robust biomarker identification.

Data Quality Assessment

Quality control measures throughout the analytical workflow ensure reliable multivariate analysis:

• QC samples: Analyze pooled quality control samples throughout the sequence to monitor instrument stability.
• Blank samples: Include extraction blanks to identify and remove background contaminants.
• Internal standards: Use isotope-labeled internal standards to normalize for extraction and ionization efficiency.
• Signal stability: Assess relative standard deviation (RSD) of lipids in QC samples, typically excluding features with RSD >20-30%.

Interpretation Guidelines

Effective interpretation of multivariate models requires careful consideration of multiple elements:

• Model parameters: Evaluate both R² (goodness of fit) and Q² (predictive ability), with Q² >0.5 indicating good predictive performance.
• Score plots: Examine both predictive and orthogonal components to understand between-group and within-group variation.
• Loading plots/VIP: Identify influential variables but confirm with univariate statistics and fold-changes.
• Effect size: Consider both statistical significance and biological relevance when interpreting identified lipid alterations.

The integrated application of PCA, OPLS-DA, and VIP selection provides a powerful framework for extracting meaningful biological insights from complex plasma lipidomics datasets in diabetes and hyperuricemia research. This multivariate approach enables researchers to navigate high-dimensional data space, identify robust lipid biomarkers, and uncover disrupted metabolic pathways that might remain hidden with univariate methods alone.

When implemented with appropriate validation and quality control measures, this analytical pipeline significantly advances our understanding of the lipidomic underpinnings of metabolic diseases, potentially leading to improved diagnostic strategies and therapeutic interventions for conditions like diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia.

Optimizing Lipidomics Workflows: From Sample Preparation to Data Quality

The efficacy of untargeted lipidomics and metabolomics in clinical research hinges critically on the initial step of metabolite extraction. The choice of solvent system directly dictates the breadth and depth of metabolite coverage, influencing subsequent analytical results and biological interpretations. Within the specific research context of plasma untargeted lipidomics for complex metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA), optimizing this step is paramount for identifying robust biomarkers and elucidating pathogenic mechanisms. This guide provides an in-depth technical examination of solvent system selection, presenting quantitative data, detailed protocols, and contextualized insights to empower researchers in maximizing metabolite extraction efficiency.

Comparative Performance of Solvent Systems

The selection of an appropriate solvent system is a trade-off between extraction efficiency, analytical coverage, and practical considerations. The performance of a solvent varies significantly across different lipid classes due to differences in metabolite polarity and chemical structure.

Table 1: Extraction Efficiency of Different Solvent Systems for Key Lipid Classes

Lipid Class	Solvent System	Extraction Performance / Key Findings
Lysophospholipids (LPC, LPE)	Methanol (MeOH), Ethanol (EtOH), Isopropanol (IPA), Acetonitrile (ACN), Butanol:MeOH (BuMe)	High recovery for all tested solvents due to high polarity [53].
Phospholipids (PC, PE, SM)	IPA, BuMe, EtOH	Acceptable to high recovery [53].
	MeOH, ACN	Lower recovery; significant precipitation (e.g., >75% of PC and SM for ACN) [53].
Sphingolipids (Cer, SM)	MeOH-TBME	Suitable for lactosyl ceramides [54].
Triglycerides (TG)	IPA, BuMe	High recovery (comparable to reference Bligh & Dyer) [53].
	MeOH, EtOH, ACN, MeOH:ACN (1:1)	Very low recovery (<5%) due to precipitation in polar solvents [53].
Cholesteryl Esters (CE)	Hexane-Isopropanol	Best for apolar lipids [54].
	IPA, BuMe	High recovery [53].
	MeOH, EtOH, ACN, MeOH:ACN (1:1)	Very low recovery (<5%) [53].
Broad Lipidome Coverage	Folch (CHCl₃:MeOH)	Most effective for a broad range of 19 lipid subclasses from human LDL; considered a robust reference method [54].
Acidic Lipids (e.g., PA, LPA)	Butanol-based Extraction	Robust extraction without derivatization; effective for challenging lysolipids [55].

Table 2: Impact of Sample-to-Solvent Ratio on Lipid Recovery in Monophasic Extractions [53]

Solvent	Sample:Solvent Ratio	Impact on Lipid Recovery
Methanol (MeOH)	1:3, 1:4, 1:5	Recovery of intermediate polarity lipids (e.g., PC, SM, Cer) improves with higher solvent volume. Recovery of nonpolar lipids (TG, CE) remains low even at 1:5 ratio.
Isopropanol (IPA)	1:3, 1:4, 1:5	Generally high recovery across ratios; may be optimal for balancing solvent use and efficiency.
Butanol:MeOH (BuMe)	1:3, 1:4, 1:5	Generally high recovery across ratios.

The chemical principle of "like dissolves like" governs the efficiency of these extractions. Monophasic extractions using a single polar solvent (e.g., MeOH, ACN) are highly effective for polar metabolites but fail to solubilize nonpolar lipids, leading to their precipitation [53]. Biphasic systems, such as the classic Folch or Bligh & Dyer methods, use a combination of polar and nonpolar solvents (e.g., chloroform and methanol) to create two phases, thereby partitioning lipids based on polarity and allowing for a more comprehensive extraction [54].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Biphasic Extraction: Folch Method for Comprehensive Lipidomics

The Folch method is a gold-standard biphasic extraction for broad lipidome coverage.

• Step 1: Sample Preparation. Add 160 µL of ice-cold methanol (containing an antioxidant like 50 µg/mL BHT) to the biological sample (e.g., LDL isolate or plasma). Vortex thoroughly to disrupt protein-lipid interactions [54].
• Step 2: Lipid Solubilization. Add 320 µL of ice-cold chloroform to the mixture. Vortex intermittently and incubate on ice for 20 minutes. This forms a monophasic solution, solubilizing lipids [54].
• Step 3: Phase Separation. Add 150 µL of high-purity water to induce phase separation. Vortex and incubate on ice for 10 minutes. Centrifuge at 2,000 g for 5 minutes to separate the phases: the lower organic phase (chloroform-rich) contains the lipids, and the upper aqueous phase contains non-lipid contaminants [54].
• Step 4: Lipid Recovery. Carefully recover the lower organic phase. Re-extract the aqueous phase by adding 250 µL of ice-cold chloroform:methanol (2:1, v/v). Combine the organic phases and dry under a gentle stream of nitrogen. Store the dried lipid extract at -70°C until analysis [54].

Monophasic Extraction: Isopropanol Method for High-Throughput

A monophasic isopropanol extraction is suitable for higher-throughput analysis, particularly when focusing on polar to mid-polar lipids.

• Step 1: Sample and Solvent Mixing. Thaw 20 µL of serum on ice. Add 400 µL of ice-cold isopropanol, ensuring a 1:20 ratio. Vortex vigorously for 3-5 minutes [56].
• Step 2: Protein Precipitation. Let the mixture stand at room temperature for 10 minutes, then incubate at -20°C overnight to precipitate proteins completely [56].
• Step 3: Pellet Removal. Centrifuge the sample at 14,000 rpm for 20 minutes at 4°C. This pellets the denatured proteins [56].
• Step 4: Supernatant Collection. Carefully transfer 150 µL of the supernatant to a mass spectrometry vial for direct analysis. For quality control, prepare a pooled QC sample by combining 10 µL of supernatant from each sample [56].

Solvent Comparison: Protocol for Method Selection

For systematic evaluation of solvent efficiency, a comparative protocol can be employed.

• Step 1: Sample Aliquoting. Divide a single serum sample into multiple equal aliquots (e.g., 100 µL each) for each solvent system to be tested [57].
• Step 2: Solvent Addition and Precipitation. Add a fixed volume of each test solvent (e.g., 300 µL) to the aliquots. Test solvents can include pure MeOH, pure ACN, and their mixtures in varying ratios (e.g., 90:10, 70:30, 50:50, 30:70, 10:90, v/v). Vortex and incubate on ice [57].
• Step 3: Post-Processing. Centrifuge to pellet precipitated proteins. Evaporate the supernatant to dryness. Reconstitute the dried metabolites in a consistent solvent compatible with your LC-MS platform (e.g., 80% methanol) [57].
• Step 4: Analysis and Comparison. Analyze all samples under identical LC-MS conditions. Compare the number of metabolic features, signal intensities, and coverage of key lipid classes to inform solvent selection [57].

Application in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia Research

The choice of solvent system has a direct impact on the biological conclusions drawn in metabolic disease research. In a study investigating Hyperuricemia (HUA), serum samples pretreated with seven different solvent mixtures revealed varying numbers of potential differential metabolites, from 20 to 50, depending on the solvent used [57]. This highlights that an incomplete extraction can lead to missing key biomarkers.

Integrated untargeted and targeted metabolomics in HUA research identified 50 differential metabolites. Glycerophospholipid metabolism emerged as a consistently disturbed pathway, a finding that hinges on the effective extraction of phospholipids [19]. Furthermore, a study on the exacerbation of non-alcoholic fatty pancreas disease (NAFPD) by hyperlipidemia and HUA identified glycerophospholipids as key biomarkers, a discovery enabled by a robust lipidomics approach [56]. These findings underscore that for complex metabolic diseases like DM and HUA, where lipid dysregulation is central, a comprehensive extraction method is non-negotiable for capturing the full spectrum of pathogenic metabolic disturbances.

Figure 1. Solvent Selection Impact on Disease Research. This workflow illustrates how the initial choice between biphasic and monophasic extraction directly influences metabolite coverage and the robustness of subsequent biomarker discovery in hyperuricemia (HUA) and diabetes mellitus (DM) research.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

A successful lipidomics workflow relies on a foundation of high-quality reagents and instruments.

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Instruments for Plasma Lipidomics

Category	Item	Specification / Function	Key Consideration
Solvents	Methanol (MeOH), Acetonitrile (ACN), Isopropanol (IPA), Chloroform (CHCl₃)	LC-MS grade for metabolite extraction and mobile phase preparation.	High purity is critical to reduce background noise and ion suppression [57] [54].
Internal Standards	Stable Isotope-Labeled Lipid Standards (e.g., PC, PE, SM, Cer, TG, CE)	Added prior to extraction to correct for losses and variability; enables quantification.	Must be added before extraction; may not fully compensate for poor recovery of nonpolar lipids in monophasic systems [55] [53].
Additives	Formic Acid, Ammonium Formate/Acetate, Ethylamine	Mobile phase additives to improve ionization efficiency and chromatographic separation.	Post-column addition of ethylamine can displace sodium adducts, simplifying spectra [55].
Chromatography	UPLC/Triple Quadrupole or Q-TOF	High-resolution separation (C18, HILIC columns) and accurate mass detection.	Q-TOF for untargeted discovery; Triple Quadrupole for targeted, high-sensitivity quantification [57] [19].
Sample Prep	Vortex Mixer, Refrigerated Centrifuge, Nitrogen Evaporator	For thorough mixing, protein precipitation, and gentle solvent removal.	Ensures reproducible sample processing and prevents degradation of labile metabolites [57].

Figure 2. Metabolic Pathways in HUA and DM. This diagram maps the key metabolic pathways consistently found to be dysregulated in hyperuricemia (HUA) and diabetes mellitus (DM) based on metabolomics studies, highlighting the central role of lipid and amino acid metabolism [57] [19].

Solvent system selection is a critical foundational step that profoundly influences the success of plasma untargeted lipidomics studies in diabetes and hyperuricemia research. The evidence demonstrates that there is no universal solvent; the optimal choice is dictated by the specific research aims. Biphasic systems like the Folch method provide the most comprehensive lipidome coverage, which is essential for discovery-phase studies in complex metabolic diseases. Monophasic systems offer a faster, high-throughput alternative but require careful validation to ensure they adequately extract the lipid classes of interest, particularly nonpolar species. By applying the quantitative comparisons and detailed protocols outlined in this guide, researchers can make informed decisions to maximize metabolite extraction efficiency, thereby ensuring the reliability and biological relevance of their findings.

In untargeted lipidomics, particularly for complex metabolic diseases like diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (DH), robust quality control (QC) is paramount for generating reliable data. This technical guide details the implementation of two cornerstone QC strategies: Pooled QC (PQC) samples and process blanks. Framed within plasma untargeted lipidomics research for DM and DH, we provide standardized protocols, data presentation standards, and visual workflows essential for researchers and drug development professionals aiming to minimize analytical variance and control for background interference [58] [59] [1].

Lipidomics aims to comprehensively profile lipids, molecules crucial as structural components, energy stores, and signaling mediators. Imbalances in lipid metabolism are intimately linked to pathologies including diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia [1] [60]. Untargeted lipidomics, especially using UHPLC-MS/MS, offers an unbiased discovery platform but is susceptible to analytical variation from instrument drift, matrix effects, and sample preparation artifacts [59].

Effective QC differentiates true biological signal from analytical noise. This is especially critical when investigating subtle metabolic perturbations in patient cohorts. Pooled QC Samples are used to monitor and correct analytical performance over a batch sequence, while Process Blanks are essential for identifying and subtracting contamination originating from solvents, tubes, or sample handling [58] [59]. Their combined use forms the bedrock of a credible lipidomics study.

Core QC Concepts and Preparations

Pooled QC (PQC) Samples

A PQC is created by combining a small, equal aliquot of every biological sample in a study. This creates a homogeneous sample representing the average composition of the entire cohort. When injected at regular intervals (e.g., every 5-10 samples) throughout the analytical run, the PQC provides a benchmark to track system stability, signal drift, and data reproducibility [58].

Surrogate QC (sQC) and Long-term Reference (LTR)

When the volume of biological material is limited, a commercial surrogate QC (sQC), such as commercial human plasma, can be evaluated for its suitability as a replacement for a study-specific PQC [58]. Furthermore, a Long-term Reference (LTR) material, a large batch of QC material aliquoted and stored frozen, can be used across multiple projects to track platform performance over months or years.

Process Blanks

A process blank (or method blank) contains all the solvents and reagents used in the sample preparation workflow but lacks the biological sample. It is processed identically to the real samples—through extraction, evaporation, and reconstitution. Analyzing the blank reveals ions stemming from the laboratory environment, reagents, or leachates from plasticware, which must be excluded from biological interpretations [59].

Experimental Protocols for QC in Plasma Lipidomics

The following protocols are adapted from established methodologies in human plasma/serum untargeted lipidomics [59] [1].

Protocol: Creation of Pooled QC Samples and Process Blanks

• Pooled QC Sample Preparation:

  • Thawing: Thaw all individual plasma/serum samples on ice or at 4°C.
  • Aliquoting: Vortex each sample thoroughly. Withdraw a small, precise volume (e.g., 10-20 µL) from each study sample and combine them into a single, low-protein-binding microcentrifuge tube.
  • Homogenization: Mix the pooled sample vigorously for at least 1 minute using a vortex mixer to ensure homogeneity.
  • Aliquoting and Storage: Dispense the PQC into multiple, single-use aliquots (e.g., 100 µL each) and store them at -80°C to avoid freeze-thaw cycles.

• Process Blank Preparation:

  • Use the same volume of ultra-pure water or LC-MS grade buffer (e.g., PBS) as a substitute for the biological sample (e.g., 100 µL).
  • Process this blank in parallel with each batch of samples, following the identical lipid extraction protocol.

Protocol: MTBE-Based Lipid Extraction

This is a widely adopted and robust method for comprehensive lipid extraction [59].

• Materials:

  • Methanol (LC-MS grade)
  • Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE, HPLC grade)
  • Water (LC-MS grade)
  • Formic acid
  • Internal Standard Mix: A cocktail of synthetic lipid standards not found in the biological system (e.g., LPC 13:0, PC 14:0/14:0, PE 17:0/17:0, etc.) for quality monitoring [59].

• Procedure:

  • Protein Precipitation: To a 100 µL aliquot of plasma, PQC, or process blank in a glass tube, add 750 µL of methanol containing a known amount of internal standards. Vortex for 10 seconds.
  • Liquid-Liquid Extraction: Add 2.5 mL of MTBE. Mix vigorously on a multi-pulse vortexer for 5 minutes.
  • Phase Separation: Add 625 µL of deionized water to induce phase separation. Mix for 3 minutes. Centrifuge at 1,000 g for 5 minutes at room temperature.
  • Collection of Organic Phase: The upper phase is the organic (MTBE) phase, rich in lipids. Carefully collect this phase.
  • Re-extraction (Optional): The lower phase can be re-extracted with an additional volume of MTBE to improve recovery of polar lipids.
  • Concentration: Combine the organic phases and dry under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas.
  • Reconstitution: Reconstitute the dried lipid extract in a volume of isopropanol appropriate for the MS instrument (e.g., 100-200 µL). Vortex and sonicate thoroughly to ensure complete dissolution.

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis and QC Integration

• Chromatography: Utilize a reversed-phase UHPLC system (e.g., Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column, 2.1 x 100 mm, 1.7 µm) with a gradient of 10-30 minutes. A typical mobile phase consists of A: 10 mM ammonium formate in water:acetonitrile and B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:isopropanol [59] [1].
• Mass Spectrometry: Use a high-resolution mass spectrometer (Q-TOF, Orbitrap) with data-dependent acquisition (DDA) or data-independent acquisition (DIA) in both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes to maximize lipid coverage.
• QC Injection Sequence: The analytical sequence should be designed with a balanced injection order. A PQC should be analyzed at the beginning for system conditioning, and then regularly interspersed (every 5-10 injections) throughout the run to monitor stability.

Data Assessment and Key Metrics

The data from PQC samples is critical for assessing the quality of the entire dataset.

Table 1: Key QC Metrics and Their Acceptability Criteria

QC Metric	Calculation Method	Acceptability Criteria	Purpose
Retention Time Drift	Standard deviation (SD) or %RSD of a lipid's RT in all PQC injections	%RSD < 2%	Monitor chromatographic stability [59]
Signal Intensity Drift	%RSD of a lipid's peak area in all PQC injections	%RSD < 20-30% for major lipids	Monitor MS signal stability and quantitative precision [59]
Number of Detected Lipids	Count of reproducible lipid signals in PQC	Stable count (e.g., <10% drop) across run	Ensure consistent lipid coverage [59]
Principal Component Analysis (PCA)	Multivariate analysis of all PQC injections	Tight clustering in the scores plot	Confirm analytical reproducibility and identify outliers [1]

In a robust workflow, validation with 48 replicates of a human plasma PQC demonstrated a median signal intensity %RSD of 10%, with 394 unique lipids showing an %RSD of less than 30% [59].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Materials for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Item	Function	Example & Notes
MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether)	Primary solvent for liquid-liquid lipid extraction. Provides high recovery of diverse lipid classes with minimal protein co-precipitation [59].	J.T. Baker, HPLC grade
Synthetic Lipid Standards	Internal standards for quality control; added to correct for extraction efficiency and instrument variability [59].	Avanti Polar Lipids; e.g., LPC 13:0, PC 14:0/14:0, PE 17:0/17:0
UHPLC C18 Column	Chromatographic separation of lipid species based on hydrophobicity, resolving isomers and reducing ion suppression.	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (1.7 µm) [1]
Ammonium Formate	Mobile phase additive to promote ionization and improve peak shape in ESI-MS.	Sigma-Aldrich; used at 10 mM concentration [1]
Commercial QC Plasma	Acts as a surrogate QC (sQC) or long-term reference (LTR) for cross-study comparisons and platform qualification [58].	Commercial source of characterized human plasma

Visualizing the QC Workflow and Data Processing

The following diagram, generated using Graphviz, illustrates the integrated workflow for sample processing, QC integration, and data filtering in an untargeted lipidomics study.

The workflow above ensures that data quality is assessed and enforced before biological interpretation. The subsequent diagram conceptualizes how high-quality lipidomic data can reveal perturbations in metabolic pathways relevant to diabetes and hyperuricemia.

Research has identified specific lipid alterations in DH patients, including upregulated Triglycerides (TGs), Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and Phosphatidylcholines (PCs), and downregulated Phosphatidylinositol (PI). These perturbations are enriched in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways, underscoring their central role in the disease's pathophysiology [1].

The implementation of a rigorous QC strategy based on Pooled QC samples and process blanks is non-negotiable in untargeted lipidomics. It is the foundation upon which biologically meaningful discoveries, particularly in complex metabolic diseases like diabetes and hyperuricemia, are built. The protocols, metrics, and workflows detailed herein provide a actionable framework for scientists to ensure data integrity, thereby enabling the identification of genuine lipid biomarkers and mechanistic insights.

Matrix effects represent a significant challenge in liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) based lipidomics, particularly in complex studies involving diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (DH). These effects occur when co-eluting compounds interfere with ionization, causing suppression or enhancement of analyte signals and potentially compromising data accuracy and reproducibility [61] [62]. In plasma untargeted lipidomics research on DM and DH, where researchers aim to identify subtle lipid alterations between disease states, effective management of matrix effects becomes crucial for generating reliable biological insights [1] [19].

This technical guide examines internal standardization strategies to address matrix effects, with specific application to lipidomic investigations in diabetes and hyperuricemia. We will explore detection methods, correction techniques, and practical implementation strategies tailored to this research context.

Understanding Matrix Effects in Lipidomics

Matrix effects in LC-MS primarily stem from co-eluting compounds that compete for ionization or affect droplet formation processes in the ion source. In electrospray ionization (ESI), which is commonly used in lipidomics, ionization occurs in the liquid phase before transfer to gas phase, making it particularly susceptible to matrix effects [61] [62]. Phospholipids, salts, and other endogenous compounds present in plasma can significantly suppress or enhance lipid ionization, potentially altering quantification results [62].

The complexity of plasma matrices in DM and DH research is particularly problematic due to the metabolic alterations characteristic of these conditions. Lipidomic studies have revealed significant alterations in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism in patients with diabetes and hyperuricemia, which may further complicate matrix composition [1]. These matrix variations between patient samples can introduce substantial analytical variance if not properly controlled.

Detection and Assessment of Matrix Effects

Before implementing correction strategies, researchers must first assess the presence and extent of matrix effects in their analytical methods. Several established approaches are available:

Table 1: Methods for Matrix Effect Assessment in Lipidomics

Method	Description	Applications	Limitations
Post-column Infusion	Continuous analyte infusion during LC separation with injection of blank matrix; identifies ionization suppression/enhancement regions [61] [62]	Qualitative assessment of problematic retention time windows [62]	Does not provide quantitative data; requires additional hardware [61]
Post-extraction Spike	Comparison of analyte response in neat solution versus matrix spiked post-extraction [61] [62]	Quantitative measurement of matrix effects at specific concentrations [62]	Requires blank matrix; may not reflect full concentration range effects [61]
Slope Ratio Analysis	Comparison of calibration curve slopes in neat solution versus matrix across multiple concentrations [62]	Semi-quantitative assessment across concentration range [62]	More complex than single-point methods [62]

The post-column infusion method provides a qualitative assessment of matrix effects, helping identify regions of the chromatogram most affected by ionization suppression or enhancement [62]. The post-extraction spike method, initially described by Matuszewski et al., offers quantitative data by comparing analyte response in neat solution versus matrix [62]. For untargeted lipidomics in DM and DH research, where blank matrix may be unavailable, the standard addition method can be employed to assess matrix effects without requiring analyte-free matrix [61].

Internal Standardization Strategies

Internal standardization represents the most effective approach for compensating for matrix effects in quantitative LC-MS analyses. The fundamental principle involves adding a known amount of a standard compound to correct for variations in sample preparation, ionization efficiency, and matrix effects.

Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards (SIL-IS)

Stable isotope-labeled internal standards (SIL-IS), typically featuring deuterium, carbon-13, or nitrogen-15 atoms, are considered the gold standard for matrix effect compensation [61] [63]. These compounds exhibit nearly identical chemical and physical properties to their native analogs, including retention time and ionization characteristics, while being distinguishable by mass spectrometry.

SIL-IS should be added as early as possible in the sample preparation workflow, ideally before lipid extraction, to account for procedural losses and matrix effects throughout the entire process [63]. In DM and DH lipidomics research, where complex metabolic alterations may affect lipid extraction efficiency, this early addition is particularly important.

Despite their effectiveness, SIL-IS have limitations: they are expensive, not commercially available for all lipid species, and may not completely co-elute with their native analogs due to slight changes in lipophilicity (deuterium isotope effect) [61] [63]. Additionally, the internal standard itself can cause ion suppression of the analyte, particularly affecting samples with low analyte concentrations [63].

Chemical Analog and Class-Based Internal Standards

When SIL-IS are unavailable or cost-prohibitive, researchers may employ structural analogs or class-based internal standards. These compounds share similar chemical properties with the target analytes but are distinguishable by chromatography or mass spectrometry.

In lipidomics, the common practice involves using a limited number of internal standards to represent entire lipid classes [64]. For example, a deuterated phosphatidylcholine standard might be used to normalize all phosphatidylcholine species detected in a study. This approach is implemented in software tools like LipidMatch Normalizer (LMN), which automates the process of matching internal standards to detected lipids based on class similarity and retention time proximity [64] [65].

Table 2: Internal Standard Selection Strategy for Lipidomics

Standard Type	Match Level	Application	Considerations
Stable Isotope-Labeled Analog	Exact structure with isotopic label	Individual lipid species quantification	Gold standard; limited availability and high cost [61] [63]
Class-Representative	Same lipid class, different fatty acyl chains	Lipid class-level quantification	Requires response factors; most common in untargeted studies [64]
Structural Analog	Different lipid class with similar properties	Limited applications	Not recommended for accurate quantification [64]

The selection of appropriate internal standards should consider both lipid class and retention time proximity. LipidMatch Normalizer employs a ranking system where a rank of 1 indicates matching lipid class and adduct, while rank 3 indicates neither matches [64] [65]. For optimal correction, internal standards should co-elute with target analytes to account for region-specific ion suppression effects [64].

Application in Diabetes Mellitus and Hyperuricemia Lipidomics

In lipidomic studies of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, researchers have identified specific lipid alterations that present particular challenges for quantification. Studies have revealed significant upregulation of triglycerides (TGs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and phosphatidylcholines (PCs) in patients with DH compared to healthy controls [1]. These lipid classes exhibit different ionization efficiencies and may be affected differently by matrix effects.

For untargeted lipidomics studies in this field, where hundreds to thousands of lipid species may be detected, it is impractical to use a SIL-IS for each individual species. Instead, a strategic selection of internal standards covering major lipid classes is recommended:

• Glycerolipids: Deuterated triacylglycerol standards
• Glycerophospholipids: Deuterated phosphatidylcholine and phosphatidylethanolamine standards
• Sphingolipids: Deuterated ceramide and sphingomyelin standards
• Sterol Lipids: Deuterated cholesteryl ester standards

This approach aligns with findings from DH lipidomics research, which identified glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism as the most significantly perturbed pathways [1].

Experimental Protocols for Internal Standard Implementation

Sample Preparation with Internal Standards

• Internal Standard Solution Preparation: Prepare a mixed internal standard solution in appropriate solvent (typically isopropanol or methanol) at concentrations relevant to expected analyte levels in samples [64].

• Sample Fortification: Add fixed volume of internal standard solution to each plasma sample (typically 10-50 μL depending on sample volume) prior to lipid extraction [64] [63].

• Lipid Extraction: Perform extraction using validated methods (e.g., MTBE, Bligh-Dyer, or BUME). For plasma samples, a common approach involves:

  • Combining 100 μL plasma with 200 μL cold water
  • Adding 240 μL pre-cooled methanol
  • Adding 800 μL methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)
  • Sonication in low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes
  • Standing at room temperature for 30 minutes
  • Centrifugation at 14,000×g for 15 minutes at 10°C
  • Collection of upper organic phase [1]

• Reconstitution: Dry organic extracts under nitrogen and reconstitute in appropriate LC-MS solvent [1].

LC-MS Analysis Conditions

Chromatographic conditions should be optimized to separate lipid classes and minimize co-elution of matrix components:

• Column: Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) or similar [1]
• Mobile Phase:
  • A: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/water
  • B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/isopropanol [1]
• Gradient: Optimized for lipid class separation; typically 5-30 minutes
• Mass Spectrometer: High-resolution instrument (Q-TOF, Orbitrap, or FT-ICR) for untargeted analysis [1] [66]
• Ionization: ESI positive and negative mode switching

Data Processing with Internal Standard Normalization

For untargeted lipidomics data, the following workflow implements internal standard normalization:

Software tools like LipidMatch Normalizer facilitate automated internal standard assignment by matching detected features to appropriate internal standards based on lipid class and retention time proximity [64] [65]. The normalization formula typically applied is:

[ \text{Normalized Abundance} = \frac{\text{Analyte Peak Area}}{\text{Internal Standard Peak Area}} \times \text{Internal Standard Concentration} ]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Internal Standardization in Lipidomics

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Experimental Workflow
Stable Isotope-Labeled Internal Standards	Deuterated PC(16:0/18:1-d7), TG(16:0/18:1/18:1-d5), Cer(d18:1/16:0-d3)	Compensation for extraction efficiency variations and matrix effects during ionization [64]
Chromatography Columns	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) [1]	Lipid separation by hydrophobic interactions to reduce co-elution with matrix components
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, isopropanol, chloroform [1]	Selective extraction of lipid classes while excluding polar matrix interferents
Mobile Phase Additives	Ammonium formate, ammonium acetate, formic acid [1]	Enhancement of ionization efficiency and adduct formation consistency
Quality Control Materials	NIST SRM 1950 human plasma, pooled quality control samples [58]	Monitoring of analytical performance and normalization verification

Effective management of matrix effects through internal standardization is essential for generating reliable lipidomic data in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia research. While stable isotope-labeled internal standards represent the optimal approach, practical considerations often necessitate class-based standardization strategies. The implementation of automated normalization tools like LipidMatch Normalizer streamlines this process while maintaining analytical rigor.

As lipidomics continues to evolve as a key technology for understanding metabolic diseases like DM and DH, robust standardization approaches will remain fundamental to translating lipid profiling into meaningful biological insights and potential clinical applications.

Lipidomics, the comprehensive analysis of lipid molecules within a biological system, faces significant analytical challenges due to the immense structural diversity of lipids. The LIPID MAPS portal lists over 24,000 unique curated lipid structures, divided into eight main categories: fatty acyls, glycerolipids, glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, saccharolipids, polyketides, sterol, and prenol lipids [67]. This diversity is further complicated by the presence of numerous isomers and isobars—lipids with the same molecular formula but different structures—which co-elute and cannot be distinguished by mass spectrometry alone [67]. In plasma untargeted lipidomics research for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (DH), these challenges are particularly pronounced as researchers seek to identify subtle lipid alterations associated with disease progression.

The core challenge in lipid separation stems from the fundamental structure of lipids, which consist of ionizable head groups and nonpolar chains, creating molecules with diverse physicochemical properties [68]. When analyzing complex biological samples like plasma, the direct injection of lipid extracts prepared in organic solvents often leads to severe peak distortion, broadening, and carryover in reversed-phase liquid chromatography (RPLC) systems [68]. This occurs because nonpolar lipid analytes cannot be properly focused on the head of a RP chromatographic column when introduced in nonpolar extraction solvents, leading to precipitation and sample loss [68]. These analytical hurdles directly impact the sensitivity and reliability of lipid quantification in diabetes and hyperuricemia research, where detecting low-abundance lipid species is crucial for biomarker discovery.

Core Chromatographic Optimization Strategies

Column Selection and Configuration

The selection of appropriate column dimensions and packing materials represents a foundational decision in chromatographic method development for lipidomics. Research demonstrates that longer columns packed with smaller particles significantly enhance separation performance for complex lipid mixtures. In comparative studies, 50 cm capillary columns packed with 1.7 μm BEH C18 particles and operated at 35 kpsi provided a 20-95% increase in chromatographic peak capacity compared with standard 15 cm columns operated at 15 kpsi [69]. The extended column length facilitated improved separation of both regional and geometrical isomers, which is critical for understanding the nuanced lipid alterations in metabolic disorders like diabetes and hyperuricemia.

The correlation between chromatographic performance and lipid identification rates highlights the importance of column optimization. Analyses using extended columns (up to 50 cm) with shallow gradients generated peak capacities up to 410±5, enabling the identification of 480±85 lipids from human plasma extracts [69]. This enhanced performance stems from reduced co-elution and consequent ionization suppression, allowing more lipid species to be detected at sufficient signal intensity. For researchers investigating the plasma lipidome in diabetes, this translates to improved coverage of low-abundance lipid species that may serve as potential biomarkers.

Table 1: Impact of Column Parameters on Lipid Separation Performance

Column Length	Particle Size	Operating Pressure	Peak Capacity	Lipids Identified	Key Advantages
15 cm	1.7 μm	15 kpsi	Baseline	Reference	Standard method for routine analysis
25 cm	1.7 μm	35 kpsi	20-50% increase	30-60% increase	Balanced analysis time and resolution
50 cm	1.7 μm	35 kpsi	20-95% increase	Significant increase	Superior isomer separation, reduced ionization suppression
15-50 cm	1.7 μm	35 kpsi	Up to 410±5	480±85	Maximum coverage for discovery lipidomics

Mobile Phase and Gradient Optimization

The composition of the mobile phase and its delivery through carefully designed gradients profoundly impact lipid separation efficiency. For reversed-phase separation of lipids, typical mobile phases consist of aqueous buffers (such as 10 mM ammonium formate) combined with organic modifiers including acetonitrile, methanol, and isopropanol [11]. The choice of buffer and its concentration affects both chromatographic performance and electrospray ionization efficiency, with ammonium formate concentrations typically ranging from 5-20 mM [70].

Systematic optimization of gradient profiles enables researchers to achieve optimal separation of diverse lipid classes. Shallow gradients are particularly effective for resolving complex lipid mixtures, though they require extended analysis times. Research demonstrates that analysis times up to 4 hours with carefully designed shallow gradients can generate peak capacities exceeding 400, significantly enhancing lipidome coverage [69]. For targeted analysis of specific lipid classes implicated in diabetes and hyperuricemia, such as triglycerides, phosphatidylethanolamines, and phosphatidylcholines, steeper gradients may be employed to improve throughput while maintaining adequate separation [11].

The application of design of experiments (DoE) methodologies, particularly Box-Behnken designs, provides a systematic approach for optimizing multiple chromatographic parameters simultaneously. This statistical approach evaluates the influence of critical factors including aqueous phase concentration, flow rate, and buffer strength on key responses such as retention time, peak area, and peak symmetry [70]. Through such multivariate optimization, researchers can identify robust method conditions that deliver optimal lipid separation for diabetes research applications.

Advanced Injection and Loading Techniques

The incompatibility between nonpolar lipid extraction solvents and aqueous RP chromatography mobile phases presents a significant challenge in lipidomics. Conventional approaches address this through solvent evaporation and reconstitution in compatible solvents, but this introduces risks of inconsistent recovery and lipid deterioration [68]. Advanced two-dimensional liquid chromatography (2D-LC) systems with novel injection procedures offer a sophisticated solution to this problem.

A recently developed 2D-LC-MS method incorporates an online dilution process that enables quantitative and carryover-free injection of lipid analytes from native extraction solvents [68]. This approach involves diluting 20 μL nonpolar lipid mixture samples (extracted with methyl tert-butyl ether/chloroform/methanol) fivefold to 100 μL with methanol, then transferring this mixture to the head of the analytical column. Methanol serves as an ideal dilution solvent due to its complete miscibility with nonpolar extraction solvents and relatively weak elution strength in RP chromatography [68]. The mixing with aqueous eluent occurs exclusively at the column head, ensuring analytes are quantitatively trapped and focused, resulting in sharp chromatographic peaks.

This advanced loading workflow enables a significant increase in injected sample volume of native nonpolar extracts while maintaining compatibility with RP chromatography. The method has demonstrated excellent peak shapes and stable retention times across the entire lipid polarity range, from very polar lysophospholipids to nonpolar cholesteryl esters [68]. For diabetes researchers, this translates to improved sensitivity and reproducibility in lipid quantification from plasma samples.

Orthogonal Separation Techniques

Ion Mobility Spectrometry Integration

Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) has emerged as a transformative technology for lipidomics, providing an orthogonal separation dimension that resolves isobaric and isomeric lipid species not separated by liquid chromatography alone. IMS separates gas-phase ions based on their size, shape, and charge as they migrate through an inert buffer gas under the influence of an electric field [71]. This separation yields collision cross-section (CCS) values—reproducible physicochemical parameters that reflect an ion's gas-phase conformation and serve as robust identifiers for lipid annotation [67].

Several IMS platforms have been developed, each with unique capabilities for lipid analysis. Drift tube IMS (DTIMS), available on platforms like the Agilent 6560, employs a uniform electric field and enables direct CCS determination without external calibration [71]. Traveling wave IMS (TWIMS) uses propagating voltage waves to propel ions through the gas-filled cell, while trapped IMS (TIMS) immobilizes ions against a gas flow using electric fields before releasing them based on mobility [71]. The integration of IMS with LC-MS systems creates a powerful four-dimensional (4D) separation platform incorporating retention time, MS1, MS/MS, and CCS data, significantly enhancing lipid identification confidence [71].

Table 2: Ion Mobility Spectrometry Platforms for Lipidomics

IMS Platform	Separation Principle	Resolving Power	Key Features	Applications in Lipidomics
Drift Tube IMS (DTIMS)	Uniform electric field	~50 (single pulse), ~210 (multiplexed)	Direct CCS measurement without calibration; Hadamard multiplexing for sensitivity	Gold standard for CCS value determination; identification of lipid species
Traveling Wave IMS (TWIMS)	Propagating voltage waves	60 (single pass)	Compatible with various mass spectrometer platforms	Rapid separation of lipid classes; isomer separation when combined with derivatization
Trapped IMS (TIMS)	Electric field against gas flow	>200	High sensitivity; mobility-selected tandem MS	Analysis of low-abundance lipids; structural characterization of lipids
Cyclic IMS (CIMS)	Multiple passes through circular path	>750 (after 100 passes)	Tunable resolution by adjusting cycle number; mobility selection	Ultrahigh-resolution separation of lipid isomers (double bond position, stereochemistry)

Advanced IMS operation modes further enhance lipid analysis capabilities. In single-pulse mode, ions are introduced as a single packet into the drift tube, achieving resolutions of approximately 50 [71]. Demultiplexed mode significantly improves performance by injecting multiple ion packets at predefined intervals, with overlapping signals computationally resolved using Hadamard transformation. This approach can increase sensitivity up to six-fold and enhance resolution from 35 in single-pulse mode to 210 for lipid species like PC 38:6 [71]. For diabetes researchers investigating subtle lipid alterations, these sensitivity and resolution improvements enable detection of low-abundance isomers that may serve as critical disease biomarkers.

Two-Dimensional Liquid Chromatography

Comprehensive two-dimensional liquid chromatography (LC×LC) represents a powerful approach for addressing the extreme complexity of biological lipidomes. By combining two orthogonal separation mechanisms, LC×LC significantly increases peak capacity and reduces matrix effects. The most common configuration for lipid analysis couples hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) in the first dimension with reversed-phase chromatography in the second dimension [68]. This arrangement provides separation by lipid class (HILIC) followed by separation within each class by hydrophobicity (RP), effectively dispersing lipid species across a two-dimensional separation space.

A key challenge in comprehensive 2D-LC lies in the solvent incompatibility between the two dimensions. The aqueous/organic eluents from HILIC separation are often incompatible with the initial mobile phase conditions of the RP dimension, potentially causing peak broadening and distortion for early-eluting compounds [68]. Recent innovations address this limitation through online dilution techniques that modify the solvent strength of fractions transferred between dimensions. These approaches enable quantitative transfer of lipid analytes while maintaining focusing at the head of the second dimension column, preserving chromatographic integrity [68].

The practical implementation of 2D-LC for lipidomics involves careful optimization of both dimensions and the interface between them. In first-dimension HILIC separation, lipid classes are typically resolved using a gradient from high organic (acetonitrile) to high aqueous content, eluting lipids in order of increasing polarity [68]. Selected fractions are then transferred to the second dimension RP column, where a fast gradient from high aqueous to high organic (typically isopropanol) separates lipids based on their acyl chain length and degree of unsaturation. This comprehensive separation significantly reduces ion suppression and enables detection of low-abundance lipid species that would otherwise be obscured in complex plasma samples from diabetic patients.

Application to Diabetes and Hyperuricemia Research

Lipid Alterations in Disease States

Chromatographic optimization enables precise characterization of lipid alterations associated with diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia. Untargeted lipidomic analysis of plasma samples from DH, DM, and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) subjects reveals significant differences in lipid profiles across these conditions [11]. Multivariate analyses including principal component analysis (PCA) and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) demonstrate clear separation trends among these groups, confirming distinct lipidomic signatures associated with disease progression [11].

Specific lipid classes show pronounced alterations in diabetes with hyperuricemia. Comparative analyses have identified 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites in DH patients compared to NGT controls [11]. Among the most relevant individual metabolites, 13 triglycerides (TGs), 10 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and 7 phosphatidylcholines (PCs) were significantly upregulated, while one phosphatidylinositol (PI) was downregulated [11]. These differential lipids are predominantly enriched in glycerophospholipid metabolism (impact value: 0.199) and glycerolipid metabolism (impact value: 0.014), highlighting these pathways as central to the pathophysiology of hyperuricemia complicating diabetes [11].

The ability to resolve and quantify these subtle lipid alterations depends directly on chromatographic performance. Optimized LC methods enable separation of critical lipid pairs such as TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) and TG(16:0/16:0/20:1), which differ minimally in hydrophobicity but may have distinct biological roles in diabetes progression [67]. Similarly, improved peak shapes resulting from advanced injection techniques facilitate accurate integration and quantification, particularly for low-abundance lipid species that serve as potential biomarkers or therapeutic targets [68].

Methodological Considerations for Clinical Applications

Translating chromatographic methods from research tools to clinical applications requires careful consideration of several practical factors. Robustness and reproducibility across multiple samples and analysis batches are paramount for generating reliable data in clinical lipidomics studies. The implementation of quality control measures, including standardized sample preparation protocols, internal standardization, and system suitability testing, ensures consistent chromatographic performance throughout large-scale clinical studies [11].

Throughput requirements in clinical research often necessitate a balance between chromatographic resolution and analysis time. While extended gradients (up to 4 hours) on long columns provide maximum peak capacity and lipid coverage [69], they may be impractical for high-throughput clinical applications. In such cases, optimized methods using shorter columns (15 cm) with sub-2μm particles operated at high pressures can provide adequate separation with significantly reduced run times [69]. The development of fast scanning mass spectrometers further supports high-throughput applications by enabling rapid data acquisition without compromising data quality [72].

The integration of advanced data processing and analysis workflows represents another critical component of clinical lipidomics applications. Modern software platforms enable automated peak detection, alignment, and integration across large sample sets, significantly reducing analysis time and improving reproducibility [11]. However, challenges remain in standardizing lipid identification and quantification across different platforms and laboratories, with studies reporting agreement rates as low as 14-36% for lipid identifications when using identical LC-MS data processed with different software [18]. Addressing these challenges through method harmonization and standardization is essential for advancing lipidomics in clinical diabetes research.

Experimental Protocols

Sample Preparation and Extraction

Proper sample preparation is fundamental to successful lipidomic analysis, particularly when working with complex biological matrices like plasma. A modified Bligh and Dyer extraction protocol provides robust lipid recovery from plasma samples [11]. The procedure begins with combining 50 μL of plasma with 200 μL of 0.15 M KCl in water, 400 μL of methanol, 200 μL of chloroform, and 1 μL of acetic acid in a extraction tube. After thorough mixing, an additional 200 μL of water and 200 μL of chloroform are added, followed by brief vortexing and centrifugation at 12,100 × g for 5 minutes at room temperature [11]. The organic layer is carefully collected, transferred to an HPLC vial, dried under a gentle nitrogen stream, and reconstituted in 400 μL of an appropriate solvent compatible with the chromatographic method [11].

For methods employing direct injection of native extraction solvents, lipid extraction with methyl tert-butyl ether/chloroform/methanol (MMC) mixtures has demonstrated excellent performance [68]. The addition of an antioxidant such as butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) at 100 mg/mL to the extraction solvent helps prevent lipid oxidation during sample processing and storage [68]. This approach maintains the native lipid environment and avoids potential losses associated with solvent evaporation and reconstitution steps, thereby improving recovery of labile lipid species that may be relevant to diabetes pathophysiology.

Liquid Chromatography Method

A robust reversed-phase UHPLC method for untargeted lipidomics of plasma samples employs an ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) maintained at 40-50°C [67] [11]. The mobile phase typically consists of (A) 10 mM ammonium formate in water and (B) 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:isopropanol (10:90, v/v) [11]. The gradient program starts at 30% B, increases to 60% B over 2 minutes, ramps to 85% B at 10 minutes, reaches 100% B by 14 minutes, holds for 4 minutes, then returns to initial conditions for column re-equilibration [11]. A flow rate of 0.2-0.6 mL/min provides optimal separation while maintaining acceptable backpressure.

For ultrahigh-resolution separations using longer columns, 50 cm capillary columns packed with 1.7 μm BEH C18 particles can be operated at 35 kpsi with extended shallow gradients [69]. The packing process employs relatively high concentration slurries (200 mg/mL) with sonication to achieve uniform column beds, resulting in 6-34% increase in peak capacity compared to columns packed with lower slurry concentrations without sonication [69]. These extended separations, while time-consuming, provide maximum lipid coverage and isomer separation, making them particularly valuable for discovery-phase research in diabetes and hyperuricemia.

Ion Mobility Mass Spectrometry

The integration of ion mobility spectrometry with liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry creates a powerful three-dimensional separation platform for lipidomics. Operation of the Agilent 6560 DTIMS system in high-resolution demultiplexed (HRdm) mode significantly enhances sensitivity and resolution compared to traditional single-pulse mode [71]. For optimal performance, the IMS conditions must be carefully optimized, including drift tube voltage, rear funnel potentials, and trap filling parameters [67]. A Box-Behnken experimental design combined with a maximized desirability function represents a systematic approach for this optimization, efficiently evaluating multiple parameters and their interactions to identify optimal settings [67].

Implementation of 4-bit Hadamard multiplexing in the HRdm mode provides variable sensitivity improvements for different lipid species, with reported sensitivity increases up to six-fold for certain lipid classes [71]. The trap filling time significantly impacts both sensitivity and detector saturation, while the trap release time shows minimal effect on these parameters [67]. These optimized IMS conditions enable separation of isomeric lipid species that co-elute in conventional LC-MS analyses, providing deeper insights into the structural diversity of lipids altered in diabetes and hyperuricemia.

Optimized Lipidomics Workflow Diagram

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Lipidomics

Item	Function	Example Specifications	Application Notes
Chromatography Column	Reversed-phase separation of lipids	ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1×100 mm, 1.7 μm)	Provides satisfactory lipid coverage and critical pair separation [67]
Internal Standard Mix	Quantification and quality control	Odd-chained LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Internal Standard	Contains deuterated standards for multiple lipid classes; enables accurate quantification [68]
Extraction Solvents	Lipid extraction from plasma	Methyl tert-butyl ether/chloroform/methanol (MMC)	Provides comprehensive lipid recovery; compatible with direct injection approaches [68]
Mobile Phase Additives	Chromatographic separation and ionization	Ammonium formate (10 mM)	Improves chromatographic performance and electrospray ionization efficiency [11]
Antioxidants	Prevention of lipid oxidation during analysis	Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT, 100 mg/mL)	Preserves labile lipid species; particularly important for polyunsaturated lipids [68]
Quality Control Material	System suitability testing	Bovine total heart lipid extract	Complex lipid mixture for verifying chromatographic performance and system stability [72]

Chromatographic optimization represents a critical foundation for advancing lipidomics research in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia. Through strategic selection of column configurations, mobile phase compositions, and gradient profiles, researchers can significantly enhance lipid separation, peak shape, and overall analytical performance. The integration of orthogonal separation techniques including ion mobility spectrometry and two-dimensional liquid chromatography further expands the analytical toolbox, enabling resolution of complex isomeric lipid species that would otherwise remain hidden in conventional analyses.

The application of these optimized methods to plasma samples from diabetic and hyperuricemic patients has revealed specific alterations in triglyceride, phosphatidylethanolamine, and phosphatidylcholine species, highlighting disruptions in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways. These findings demonstrate the power of advanced chromatographic platforms to uncover subtle lipid alterations associated with disease progression, providing insights into underlying pathological mechanisms and potential biomarkers for clinical application.

As lipidomics continues to evolve toward clinical implementation, further refinement of chromatographic methods will be essential for improving throughput, robustness, and reproducibility. The integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches for method optimization and data analysis represents a promising direction for future development. Through continued innovation in chromatographic science, lipidomics will play an increasingly important role in unraveling the complex metabolic disturbances in diabetes and hyperuricemia, ultimately contributing to improved diagnostic and therapeutic strategies.

In plasma untargeted lipidomics studies investigating diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA), batch effects represent a paramount challenge that can compromise data integrity and lead to irreproducible findings. This technical guide examines the profound negative impacts of batch effects within this specific research context and provides comprehensive, actionable strategies for their mitigation. We detail how randomized sample analysis sequences serve as a crucial component of an integrated defense against technical variations, alongside advanced computational correction methods. The protocols and workflows presented herein are specifically tailored for researchers pursuing lipidomic biomarker discovery in DM-HUA comorbidities, where subtle lipid signatures must be distinguished from technical artifacts.

Batch effects are technical variations introduced during experimental processes that are unrelated to the biological factors under investigation [73]. In plasma untargeted lipidomics research focused on diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA), these effects represent a critical challenge that can obscure true biological signals and lead to misleading conclusions. The complex nature of lipidomic profiling, typically performed using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS), introduces multiple potential sources of technical variation across sample preparation, instrumentation, and data processing phases [1] [18].

The integration of multiomics data in DM-HUA research presents additional challenges for batch effect correction, as different omics types have distinct distributions and scales [73]. Lipidomics has emerged as a powerful tool for identifying differential features between biological groups in metabolic diseases, with demonstrated potential for discovering biomarkers for clinical diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic monitoring [1] [30]. However, the advancement of this promising field is threatened by the risk of technical artifacts masquerading as biological discoveries.

The Impact of Batch Effects on DM-HUA Lipidomics: In the context of DM-HUA research, batch effects can have profound consequences. A retracted study on a fluorescent serotonin biosensor illustrates how batch effects can undermine research validity—when the batch of fetal bovine serum was changed, key results became irreproducible [73]. For lipidomics studies seeking to identify subtle differences in lipid profiles between DM, DH (diabetes mellitus combined with hyperuricemia), and control groups [1], such technical variations could easily obscure or mimic the modest lipid alterations characteristic of these conditions.

Origins of Technical Variation

Batch effects in plasma untargeted lipidomics emerge from diverse sources throughout the experimental workflow. Understanding these origins is essential for developing effective mitigation strategies:

• Sample Preparation and Storage: Variations in centrifugal forces during plasma separation, time and temperatures prior to centrifugation, storage temperature, duration, and freeze-thaw cycles can cause significant changes in lipid profiles [73]. These pre-analytical factors are particularly problematic in multi-center studies where standardized protocols may be difficult to implement.

• Chromatographic Separation: Differences in UHPLC column performance, mobile phase composition, and gradient execution can introduce retention time shifts and ionization efficiency variations [1]. The complex lipid mixtures analyzed in DM-HUA studies, encompassing 30+ subclasses and thousands of individual lipid molecules [1], are especially vulnerable to such technical fluctuations.

• Mass Spectrometric Detection: Instrument calibration, contamination, and performance drift over time can systematically alter signal intensity and mass accuracy [18]. This is particularly concerning for longitudinal studies of DM-HUA progression, where technical variations may confound true temporal changes in lipid metabolism.

Consequences for DM-HUA Research

The ramifications of unaddressed batch effects in DM-HUA lipidomics are severe and multifaceted:

• Misleading Conclusions: Batch effects correlated with biological outcomes can lead to incorrect identification of lipid biomarkers. For instance, a clinical trial experienced incorrect classification outcomes for 162 patients due to a change in RNA-extraction solution, demonstrating how technical variations can directly impact clinical decision-making [73].

• Irreproducibility: Batch effects from reagent variability and experimental bias are paramount factors contributing to the reproducibility crisis in omics sciences [73]. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology failed to reproduce over half of high-profile cancer studies, highlighting the critical importance of eliminating batch effects across laboratories [73].

• Reduced Statistical Power: Even when uncorrelated with biological variables, batch effects increase variability and decrease the power to detect real biological signals [73]. This is particularly detrimental in DM-HUA lipidomics, where effect sizes may be modest and sample sizes limited.

Table 1: Documented Impacts of Batch Effects in Omics Studies

Impact Category	Specific Consequences	Reference Example
Clinical Misclassification	Incorrect patient stratification leading to inappropriate treatment	162 patients misclassified due to RNA-extraction solution change [73]
Species Misinterpretation	Artificial clustering by technical factors rather than biology	Human-mouse differences driven by 3-year gap in data generation rather than true biological variation [73]
Biomarker Discovery Failure	False positive lipid identifications	Low reproducibility (14-36% agreement) across lipidomics platforms [18]
Therapeutic Development Delays	Retracted studies and invalidated findings	Retraction of fluorescent serotonin biosensor study due to FBS batch sensitivity [73]

Randomized Sample Analysis: Principles and Implementation

Theoretical Foundation

Randomized sample analysis sequences represent a foundational strategy in batch effect mitigation, operating on the principle that randomizing the order of sample processing disrupts systematic correlations between technical variations and biological variables of interest. This approach is particularly crucial in DM-HUA lipidomics studies where cases and controls may be processed across multiple batches or where longitudinal samples are collected over extended periods.

The fundamental assumption underlying randomization is that technical variations, while inevitable, will be distributed randomly across experimental groups rather than systematically confounded with biological conditions. This approach aligns with the basic principles of experimental design that have underpinned reliable scientific discovery for decades, now applied to the high-dimensional context of lipidomics.

Practical Implementation Framework

Implementing randomized sample analysis sequences in plasma untargeted lipidomics requires careful planning and execution:

• Stratified Randomization: For case-control studies of DM-HUA, implement stratified randomization that balances biological categories (DM, DH, HUA, controls) within each processing batch and throughout the analytical sequence. This approach ensures that technical variations are distributed across all experimental groups rather than systematically correlated with any specific condition.

• Quality Control Integration: Embed quality control (QC) samples at randomized positions throughout the sequence to monitor technical performance. These QC samples should include:

  • Pooled reference samples from all study groups
  • Commercial standard reference materials (e.g., NIST SRM 1950) [23]
  • Internal standard mixtures (e.g., SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard) [23]

• Longitudinal Study Considerations: For studies tracking DM-HUA progression over time, employ block randomization that distributes timepoints across batches and sequences. This prevents confounding between temporal biological changes and batch-specific technical variations.

Table 2: Randomization Strategies for Different Experimental Designs

Study Design	Randomization Approach	Implementation Considerations
Case-Control	Complete randomization stratified by biological group	Ensure equal distribution of cases and controls throughout sequence; monitor for temporal drift
Longitudinal	Block randomization by participant and timepoint	Distribute all timepoints for each participant across the sequence to avoid confounding
Multi-Center	Stratified randomization by center with reference samples	Include shared reference materials across centers to enable cross-site normalization
Discovery-Validation	Independent randomization for discovery and validation sets	Maintain complete separation between sets while applying consistent randomization principles

Randomization Implementation Workflow: This diagram illustrates the sequential process for implementing randomized sample analysis in lipidomics studies, from initial sample collection through final batch correction.

Complementary Batch Effect Mitigation Strategies

Experimental Design Considerations

While randomized sample analysis sequences provide a foundational defense against batch effects, they must be integrated with complementary experimental design strategies:

• Sample Processing Controls: Process samples in balanced batches that include representatives from all experimental groups. For DM-HUA studies, ensure each batch contains samples from DM, DH, HUA, and control groups to prevent confounding [74].

• Reagent and Personnel Consistency: Use the same reagent lots and personnel for processing related samples whenever possible. The 10x Genomics guide emphasizes that technical factors potentially leading to batch effects may be avoided with mitigation strategies in the lab including using the same handling personnel, reagent lots, protocols, and generally using the same equipment [74].

• Blinded Analysis: Implement blinding procedures where laboratory personnel are unaware of sample group assignments during processing and data acquisition. This prevents unconscious introduction of bias during sample handling and analysis.

Computational Correction Methods

When batch effects persist despite optimal experimental design, computational correction methods provide essential post-hoc mitigation:

• Order-Preserving Correction: Novel approaches based on monotonic deep learning networks maintain the original ranking of gene expression levels while correcting batch effects [75]. These methods are particularly valuable for preserving biological information in DM-HUA lipidomics data, as they maintain inter-gene correlation and differential expression patterns.

• Reference-Based Alignment: ComBat-ref represents an advanced batch correction method that selects a reference batch with the smallest dispersion and adjusts other batches toward this reference [76]. This approach enhances statistical power and reliability while preserving count data structure.

• Harmonization Algorithms: Tools like Harmony iteratively adjust embeddings to align batches while preserving biological variation [74] [75]. These methods have demonstrated effectiveness in single-cell RNA sequencing data and may be adapted for lipidomics applications.

Table 3: Computational Batch Effect Correction Methods

Method	Underlying Principle	Advantages	Limitations
ComBat-ref [76]	Negative binomial model with reference batch alignment	Superior sensitivity and specificity; preserves reference batch data	Requires high-quality reference batch
Order-Preserving Methods [75]	Monotonic deep learning networks	Maintains original expression rankings; preserves biological signals	Computational intensity; complex implementation
Harmony [74]	Iterative embedding adjustment	Effective batch mixing while preserving biological variation	Originally designed for single-cell data
Mutual Nearest Neighbors [74]	Cross-batch cell matching using nearest neighbors	Identifies shared cell states across batches	Performance depends on batch similarity
Seurat Integration [74]	Canonical correlation analysis and anchoring	Comprehensive data integration; widely adopted	Primarily for single-cell genomics

Integrated Workflow for DM-HUA Lipidomics

Comprehensive Experimental Protocol

Implementing an effective batch effect mitigation strategy requires integration of multiple approaches throughout the entire experimental workflow. The following protocol is specifically optimized for plasma untargeted lipidomics in DM-HUA research:

Sample Preparation Phase:

• Plasma Collection: Collect fasting blood samples in EDTA tubes and centrifuge at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature [1]. Aliquot 0.2 mL of plasma into cryovials and store at -80°C until analysis.
• Lipid Extraction: Employ modified methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction protocol [30]. Take 100 μL plasma, add 200 μL 4°C water, 240 μL pre-cooled methanol, and 800 μL MTBE. Sonicate in low temperature water bath for 20 minutes, incubate at room temperature for 30 minutes, then centrifuge at 14,000 g for 15 minutes at 10°C [1].
• Sample Randomization: After extraction, randomize samples using stratified randomization that balances experimental groups across the analytical sequence. Use computational tools to generate randomized sequences that prevent confounding of biological groups with processing order.

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis:

• Chromatographic Conditions: Utilize Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) with mobile phase consisting of A: 10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile solution in water and B: 10 mM ammonium formate acetonitrile isopropanol solution [1].
• Quality Control Integration: Inject QC samples (pooled plasma samples) after every 6-10 experimental samples throughout the analytical sequence to monitor system performance and correct for instrumental drift [18].
• Blinded Analysis: Code samples to blind the analyst to group assignments during data acquisition.

Data Processing and Normalization:

• Lipid Identification: Process raw data using software such as MS-DIAL or Lipostar for peak picking, alignment, and lipid identification [18].
• Batch Effect Assessment: Perform principal component analysis (PCA) of quality metrics to identify potential batch effects [77]. Include metrics such as total signal intensity, retention time deviation, and quality control sample variance.
• Computational Correction: Apply appropriate batch effect correction algorithms such as ComBat-ref when batch effects are detected [76]. Validate correction effectiveness using visualization methods and statistical tests.

Integrated DM-HUA Lipidomics Workflow: Comprehensive workflow integrating randomized sample analysis with other batch effect mitigation strategies throughout the experimental process.

Quality Assessment and Validation

Rigorous quality assessment is essential for validating batch effect mitigation success in DM-HUA lipidomics:

• Technical Performance Metrics: Monitor retention time stability (<2% RSD), mass accuracy (<5 ppm error), and signal intensity (≤30% RSD in QC samples) throughout the analytical sequence [18].

• Batch Effect Quantification: Calculate metrics such as Average Silhouette Width (ASW) for cluster compactness and Local Inverse Simpson Index (LISI) for neighborhood diversity to quantitatively assess batch integration [75].

• Biological Preservation Validation: Verify that known biological relationships are maintained after batch correction. In DM-HUA studies, confirm that established lipid alterations (e.g., upregulated triglycerides and phosphatidylethanolamines in DH patients [1]) remain detectable post-correction.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for DM-HUA Lipidomics

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Specific Examples
Chromatography Columns	Lipid separation prior to MS detection	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) [1]
Internal Standards	Quantification normalization and quality control	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard; ceramide (d18:1-d7/15:0); oleic acid-d9 [23]
Reference Materials	Cross-laboratory standardization and QC	NIST SRM 1950 - "Metabolites in frozen human plasma" [23]
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Lipid isolation from plasma samples	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE); methanol; isopropanol [1] [30]
Mobile Phase Additives	Enhance ionization and separation	Ammonium formate (10 mM) in acetonitrile/water and acetonitrile/isopropanol [1]
Batch Correction Software	Computational mitigation of batch effects	ComBat-ref; Harmony; Seurat; mutual nearest neighbors approaches [74] [76]

Batch effect mitigation through randomized sample analysis sequences represents a critical methodological foundation for robust plasma untargeted lipidomics in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia research. When integrated with complementary experimental controls and computational correction methods, this approach provides a comprehensive defense against technical variations that could otherwise compromise biomarker discovery and mechanistic insights. As lipidomics continues to advance our understanding of metabolic disease pathophysiology, maintaining rigorous standards for data quality through effective batch effect management will be essential for translating lipidomic findings into clinically actionable knowledge. The protocols and workflows presented in this technical guide provide a roadmap for researchers seeking to maximize the reliability and reproducibility of their DM-HUA lipidomics investigations.

Translating Discoveries: Biomarker Validation and Clinical Correlations

Integrated Untargeted and Targeted Approaches for Verification

The growing prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) and its common comorbidity, hyperuricemia (HUA), presents a significant global health challenge, with dysregulated lipid metabolism representing a key pathophysiological link between these conditions. This technical guide outlines an integrated lipidomics framework combining discovery-phase untargeted analysis with validation-phase targeted quantification to advance biomarker verification and mechanistic understanding in DM-HUA research. We present detailed experimental protocols for plasma sample processing, chromatographic separation, mass spectrometric analysis, and data processing, enabling comprehensive lipidome characterization. By synthesizing recent findings from clinical studies, we highlight the most significantly altered lipid classes—including triglycerides, phosphatidylcholines, and phosphatidylethanolamines—and their enrichment in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways. This whitepaper provides researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with standardized methodologies and analytical frameworks to accelerate the translation of lipidomic discoveries into clinical applications for improved diagnosis, monitoring, and therapeutic targeting of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia (HUA) represent two interconnected metabolic disorders with growing global prevalence. According to the International Diabetes Federation's 2021 Diabetes Atlas, approximately 10.5% of adults aged 20-71 years worldwide have diabetes, while hyperuricemia affects approximately 17.7% of the Chinese population according to recent cross-sectional studies [11]. The co-occurrence of these conditions is particularly clinically relevant, as hyperuricemia complicates diabetes management and accelerates the development of diabetic complications including nephropathy, cardiovascular events, and peripheral vascular disease [11].

Lipidomics has emerged as a powerful approach for elucidating the complex metabolic disturbances underlying DM-HUA pathophysiology. Whereas conventional clinical biochemistry captures only broad lipid categories, advanced lipidomic techniques can resolve thousands of individual lipid species, providing unprecedented insights into specific metabolic pathways [78]. Integrated untargeted and targeted lipidomic approaches offer particular promise, enabling both comprehensive lipid discovery and rigorous biomarker verification within a unified analytical framework [79].

This technical guide details standardized methodologies for implementing integrated lipidomic approaches in DM-HUA research, with emphasis on experimental design, analytical protocols, data processing pipelines, and biological interpretation. By establishing consensus best practices, we aim to enhance reproducibility across laboratories and accelerate the translation of lipidomic findings into clinical applications.

Methodological Framework

Integrated Analytical Workflow

The integrated lipidomics workflow combines complementary analytical approaches to maximize both coverage and confidence in lipid identification and quantification. Figure 1 illustrates the complete experimental pipeline from sample collection to biological interpretation.

Figure 1. Integrated Lipidomics Workflow. The pipeline combines untargeted (discovery) and targeted (verification) approaches, enabling comprehensive lipid profiling and rigorous biomarker validation.

Sample Preparation Protocol

Standardized sample preparation is critical for reproducible lipidomic analysis. The following protocol has been optimized for plasma samples in DM-HUA studies:

• Sample Collection: Collect 5 mL of fasting venous blood in EDTA-containing tubes. Centrifuge at 3,000 × g for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma. Aliquot 0.2 mL of plasma into cryovials and store at -80°C until analysis [11].

• Lipid Extraction:

  • Thaw plasma samples on ice and vortex thoroughly.
  • Transfer 100 μL plasma to a 1.5 mL centrifuge tube.
  • Add 200 μL of 4°C HPLC-grade water and vortex.
  • Add 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol and vortex.
  • Add 800 μL methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and vortex.
  • Sonicate in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes.
  • Let stand at room temperature for 30 minutes.
  • Centrifuge at 14,000 × g for 15 minutes at 10°C.
  • Collect upper organic phase.
  • Dry under nitrogen stream.
  • Reconstitute in 100 μL isopropanol for analysis [11].

• Quality Control: Prepare pooled quality control (QC) samples by combining equal volumes (10 μL) from each study sample. Insert QC samples randomly throughout the analytical sequence (every 10-12 samples) to monitor instrument stability and reproducibility [79].

Chromatographic Separation

Effective lipid separation requires optimization of both normal-phase (for lipid class separation) and reversed-phase (for molecular species separation) chromatography:

• UHPLC Conditions:

  • Column: Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm)
  • Mobile Phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:water (60:40, v:v)
  • Mobile Phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile:isopropanol (10:90, v:v)
  • Gradient Program: 0-2 min (40% B), 2-25 min (40-100% B), 25-30 min (100% B), 30-31 min (100-40% B), 31-35 min (40% B)
  • Flow Rate: 0.3 mL/min
  • Column Temperature: 45°C
  • Injection Volume: 2 μL [11]

• Multiplexed NPLC-HILIC MRM Method:

  • Enables quantification of >20 lipid classes in a single 20-minute run
  • Addresses analytical challenges including in-source fragmentation and isomer separations
  • Utilizes multiple MS/MS product ions per lipid species to improve identification confidence [79]

Mass Spectrometric Analysis

Table 1: Mass Spectrometry Parameters for Untargeted and Targeted Lipidomics

Parameter	Untargeted Approach	Targeted Approach
Instrument Platform	UHPLC-Q-TOF	LC-Triple Quadrupole
Ionization Mode	ESI Positive/Negative	ESI Positive/Negative
Mass Resolution	>30,000 FWHM	Unit Resolution
Mass Accuracy	<5 ppm	<0.1 Da
Scan Mode	Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA)	Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM)
Scan Range	m/z 200-1200	Predefined transitions
Collision Energy	Ramped (10-50 eV)	Optimized per lipid
Source Temperature	500°C	500°C
Ion Spray Voltage	5500 V (Positive), -4500 V (Negative)	5500 V (Positive), -4500 V (Negative)

Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

Lipidomic datasets require specialized statistical approaches to address their high-dimensional nature and correlated structure:

• Data Preprocessing:

  • Perform peak picking, alignment, and normalization
  • Impute missing values using appropriate methods (e.g., k-nearest neighbors)
  • Apply quality control filters (remove features with >30% CV in QC samples) [78]

• Univariate Analysis:

  • Apply appropriate statistical tests (t-test, ANOVA) based on experimental design
  • Correct for multiple testing using false discovery rate (FDR) methods
  • Set significance threshold at FDR < 0.05 [78]

• Multivariate Analysis:

  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Unsupervised method to assess overall data structure and identify outliers
  • Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA): Supervised method to maximize separation between predefined groups
  • Heatmap Clustering: Visualize patterns in lipid abundance across sample groups [80]

• Bioinformatic Interpretation:

  • Use lipid pathway analysis tools (MetaboAnalyst 5.0, LIPID MAPS)
  • Perform lipid set enrichment analysis
  • Calculate pathway impact values based on topological importance [11]

Key Research Findings in DM-HUA Lipidomics

Differential Lipid Signatures

Recent lipidomic studies have consistently identified specific lipid classes that are significantly altered in DM-HUA patients compared to healthy controls or DM-only patients. Table 2 summarizes the most significantly altered lipid species based on recent clinical studies.

Table 2: Significantly Altered Lipid Species in DM-HUA Patients

Lipid Class	Specific Lipid Species	Direction of Change	Statistical Significance	Biological Relevance
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.001	Energy storage, insulin resistance
	TG(53:0)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	Associated with HUA risk [30]
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.01	Membrane integrity, signaling
	PC(16:0/20:5)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	HUA risk marker [30]
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.01	Membrane fluidity, cellular signaling
Diacylglycerols (DAGs)	DAG(16:0/22:5)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	Insulin resistance, HUA risk [30]
	DAG(16:0/22:6)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	HUA risk marker [30]
	DAG(18:1/20:5)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	HUA risk marker [30]
	DAG(18:1/22:6)	↑ Upregulated	p < 0.05	HUA risk marker [30]
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs)	LPC(20:2)	↓ Downregulated	p < 0.05	Anti-inflammatory, inverse HUA association [30]
Phosphatidylinositols (PIs)	Various	↓ Downregulated	p < 0.05	Cell signaling, membrane trafficking

Dysregulated Metabolic Pathways

Pathway analysis of differential lipids reveals consistent perturbation of specific metabolic pathways in DM-HUA patients. Figure 2 illustrates the key dysregulated pathways and their interconnections.

Figure 2. Dysregulated Lipid Metabolic Pathways in DM-HUA. Key pathways include glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism, with identified impact values from pathway analysis [11]. Arrows indicate established biological relationships.

The most significantly perturbed pathways identified through lipidomic studies include:

• Glycerophospholipid Metabolism (Impact value: 0.199): This pathway shows the highest perturbation in DM-HUA patients, with significant alterations in phosphatidylcholines (PCs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs). These lipids play crucial roles in membrane structure, fluidity, and cell signaling processes [11].

• Glycerolipid Metabolism (Impact value: 0.014): This pathway is characterized by elevated triglycerides (TGs) and diacylglycerols (DAGs), which are strongly associated with insulin resistance and HUA risk. Notably, specific DAG species show correlation with de novo lipogenesis fatty acids (e.g., 16:1n-7) with Spearman correlation coefficients of 0.32-0.41 (p < 0.001) [30].

• Potential Mediators: Retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4), an adipokine linked with dyslipidemia and insulin resistance, mediates 5-14% of the lipid-HUA associations based on mediation analyses [30].

Dietary Interventions and Lipidomic Responses

Emerging research investigates dietary modifications for modulating lipid metabolism in HUA. Table 3 summarizes key findings from a recent dietary intervention study replacing triacylglycerol (TAG) with diacylglycerol (DAG) in athletes with HUA.

Table 3: Lipidomic Responses to DAG Dietary Intervention in HUA Patients

Parameter	Responders	Non-Responders	Biological Significance
Uric Acid Reduction	345.1 μmol/L (↓)	462.3 μmol/L (↓)	Normalization in responders only [81]
Key Lipid Alterations	↑ Plasmalogen PCs	Minimal changes	Enhanced membrane function
	↓ Acylcarnitines	Minimal changes	Improved mitochondrial metabolism
	↓ Xanthine	Minimal changes	Reduced purine metabolism
Proposed Mechanisms	Reduced ROS production	Persistent oxidative stress	Lowered uric acid production
	Increased phospholipids	Limited changes	Enhanced intestinal UA excretion
	Improved ammonia recycling	Impaired recycling	Decreased serum UA levels

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for DM-HUA Lipidomics

Category	Specific Items	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Sample Collection	EDTA blood collection tubes	Plasma separation, anticoagulation	Maintain sample integrity
	Cryovials (1.5-2.0 mL)	Long-term sample storage at -80°C	Prevent freeze-thaw cycles
Lipid Extraction	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	Lipid extraction solvent	High purity for MS compatibility
	HPLC-grade methanol, water, isopropanol	Mobile phases, sample preparation	Minimize chemical interference
	Ammonium formate	Mobile phase additive	Enhance ionization efficiency
Chromatography	UPLC BEH C18 column (1.7 μm)	Lipid separation	Optimal for complex lipid mixtures
	HILIC columns	Lipid class separation	Complementary to reversed-phase
Mass Spectrometry	Reference standards (≥700 lipids)	Lipid identification/quantification	Cover major lipid classes [79]
	Quality control materials (NIST-SRM-1950)	Method validation, inter-lab comparison	Ensure analytical reproducibility [79]
Data Analysis	Lipidomics software (Lipidizer, MetaboAnalyst)	Data processing, statistical analysis	Enable high-throughput processing [80]
	Lipid databases (LIPID MAPS, KEGG)	Lipid identification, pathway mapping	Ensure accurate annotation

Integrated untargeted and targeted lipidomic approaches provide a powerful framework for advancing DM-HUA research by enabling comprehensive lipid discovery coupled with rigorous biomarker verification. The standardized methodologies presented in this technical guide—encompassing sample preparation, chromatographic separation, mass spectrometric analysis, and data processing—establish consensus best practices that enhance reproducibility across laboratories.

The consistent identification of specific lipid signatures (including TGs, PCs, PEs, and DAGs) and their enrichment in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways highlights the key metabolic disturbances linking diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia. Furthermore, emerging evidence regarding dietary interventions and potential mediators like RBP4 offers promising directions for future therapeutic strategies.

As lipidomic technologies continue to evolve, implementing these integrated approaches will be crucial for translating lipid discoveries into clinical applications that improve diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia.

Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis serves as a fundamental statistical tool for evaluating the diagnostic performance of biomarkers, particularly in complex metabolic disorders where multiple biomarkers may provide synergistic predictive value. In the context of plasma untargeted lipidomics research for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperuricemia, ROC analysis enables researchers to quantitatively assess how well newly discovered lipid signatures can distinguish between diseased and healthy populations, ultimately determining their potential clinical utility [82] [83]. The integration of lipidomics with ROC analytics has emerged as a powerful approach for advancing personalized medicine in metabolic disease management.

The convergence of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia represents a significant clinical challenge, with studies indicating a prevalence of comorbidity as high as 81.6% in uncontrolled type 2 diabetes populations [84]. This metabolic synergy necessitates advanced diagnostic approaches capable of capturing the complex lipidomic alterations underlying these conditions. Untargeted lipidomics, employing ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS), has revealed extensive dysregulation in lipid species including triglycerides, phosphatidylcholines, phosphatidylethanolamines, and sphingolipids in patients with combined diabetes and hyperuricemia [1]. ROC analysis provides the critical framework for translating these discoveries into clinically actionable tools.

Theoretical Foundations of ROC Curve Analysis

Fundamental Concepts and Metrics

The ROC curve is a graphical representation of a diagnostic test's discriminatory capacity, plotting the true positive rate (sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1-specificity) across all possible classification thresholds [82]. Key metrics derived from ROC analysis include:

• Area Under the Curve (AUC): A scalar value ranging from 0 to 1 that quantifies the overall ability of a biomarker to distinguish between classes. Conventional interpretation guidelines classify AUC values as follows: 0.5 suggests no discriminative ability (random chance); 0.7-0.8 indicates acceptable discrimination; 0.8-0.9 suggests excellent discrimination; and >0.9 represents outstanding discrimination [82].
• Optimal Threshold Selection: The point on the ROC curve that maximizes both sensitivity and specificity, often determined using Youden's index (J = sensitivity + specificity - 1) [82].
• Confidence Intervals: Provide a measure of precision for AUC estimates, with narrower intervals indicating greater reliability of the performance estimate.

Analytical Workflow for Lipid Biomarker Evaluation

The process of evaluating lipid biomarkers through ROC analysis follows a structured pathway that begins with biomarker discovery and progresses through validation and clinical implementation. The following diagram illustrates this workflow:

Figure 1: ROC Evaluation Workflow for Lipid Biomarkers

ROC Analysis Applications in Diabetes and Hyperuricemia Research

Established Lipid Ratios and Novel Scores

Recent research has identified several promising lipid-derived ratios and scores with demonstrated diagnostic utility for metabolic disorders. The following table summarizes key biomarkers and their performance characteristics derived from recent studies:

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Lipid Biomarkers in Metabolic Disorders

Biomarker	Study Population	AUC Value	95% CI	Optimal Cut-off	Sensitivity	Specificity	Citation
Renal-Metabolic Risk Score (RMRS)	Uncontrolled T2DM (n=304)	0.78	NR	NR	NR	NR	[84]
Remnant Cholesterol (RC)	T2DM (n=2,956)	0.658	0.635-0.681	NR	NR	NR	[85]
Uric acid to HDL-C Ratio (UHR)	General Population (n=30,813)	0.789 (Model M4)	NR	10 (inflection)	NR	NR	[86]
Uric acid to HDL-C Ratio (UHR)	Diabetic Nephropathy (n=17,227)	0.617	NR	5.44	NR	NR	[87]
HexCer (40:1; O2) and PC (O-32:0) panel	Parkinson's vs. Alzheimer's	>0.80	NR	NR	NR	NR	[88]

The Renal-Metabolic Risk Score (RMRS), which integrates renal parameters and lipid ratios, has demonstrated significant utility in identifying patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes at risk for combined hyperuricemia and dyslipidemia, achieving an AUC of 0.78 [84]. This score utilizes inexpensive, routine laboratory parameters, making it particularly valuable for resource-limited settings where advanced lipidomic profiling may not be feasible.

The uric acid to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (UHR) has emerged as a particularly promising biomarker, showing a strong association with diabetes risk in a large-scale study of 30,813 participants from the NHANES database (2005-2018) [86]. The relationship between UHR and diabetes risk demonstrates a nonlinear pattern, with an inflection point at UHR = 10, beyond which diabetes risk accelerates significantly [86]. Participants in the highest UHR quartile exhibited nearly four times the diabetes risk compared to those in the lowest quartile (OR = 4.063, 95% CI: 3.536-4.669) [86].

Lipidomic Signatures in Diabetes with Hyperuricemia

Untargeted lipidomic analysis has revealed distinct lipid alterations in patients with combined diabetes and hyperuricemia. A study comparing lipid profiles across diabetes mellitus (DM), diabetes with hyperuricemia (DH), and normal glucose tolerance (NGT) groups identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses [1]. The DH group exhibited significant upregulation of 13 triglycerides, 10 phosphatidylethanolamines, and 7 phosphatidylcholines compared to NGT controls [1]. These differential lipids were predominantly enriched in glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism pathways, highlighting the systematic lipid disruption in this patient population.

The performance interpretation of AUC values follows established conventions in diagnostic medicine, which can be visualized through the following conceptual diagram:

Figure 2: Interpretation of AUC Values for Diagnostic Tests

Methodological Protocols for Lipid Biomarker Evaluation

Experimental Workflow for Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Comprehensive lipid biomarker discovery follows a rigorous experimental pathway that integrates advanced analytical techniques with robust statistical validation:

Table 2: Key Experimental Steps in Plasma Untargeted Lipidomics

Step	Description	Technical Specifications	Quality Control Measures
Sample Collection	Fasting blood collection in EDTA tubes	4-5 mL venous blood, 12-hour fast	Standardized phlebotomy procedures
Sample Preparation	Lipid extraction using MTBE/methanol method	100 μL plasma + 400 μL methanol + 800 μL MTBE	Pooled quality control samples
Chromatographic Separation	UHPLC with C18 or C30 columns	2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm particle size	Column temperature maintenance (40°C)
Mass Spectrometry	Q-Exactive HF or similar high-resolution MS	Positive/negative ionization modes, m/z 150-1800	Real-time mass calibration
Data Processing	Peak alignment and identification	MS-DIAL, Lipostar, or Compound Discoverer	Internal standard normalization

The analytical process begins with proper sample collection and preparation. Plasma samples should be obtained from fasting participants and stored at -80°C until analysis [1] [89]. The methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)/methanol extraction method has emerged as a robust approach for comprehensive lipid extraction, providing high recovery across diverse lipid classes [1].

Chromatographic separation typically employs UHPLC systems with C18 or specialized C30 columns for enhanced separation of lipid isomers [90] [1]. Mobile phases commonly consist of acetonitrile/water mixtures with ammonium formate or formic acid additives, with gradient elution optimized for broad lipid coverage [90] [89].

Mass spectrometric analysis utilizes high-resolution instruments such as Q-Exactive HF systems, operating in both positive and negative ionization modes with data-dependent acquisition to enable both identification and quantification [1] [89]. Quality control samples pooled from all study participants should be analyzed at regular intervals throughout the analytical sequence to monitor instrument stability and data quality [90].

Statistical Analysis and ROC Evaluation Protocol

The statistical evaluation of lipid biomarkers employs a multi-tiered approach to ensure robust performance assessment:

R Code Implementation for ROC Analysis:

The statistical workflow incorporates both univariate and multivariate approaches. Initial univariate analyses identify individual lipids with significant alterations between patient groups, typically using t-tests or ANOVA with false discovery rate correction for multiple comparisons [88] [90]. Multivariate techniques such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA), Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), and Orthogonal PLS-DA (OPLS-DA) then assess the collective discriminatory power of lipid panels [88] [1].

Machine learning algorithms, including LASSO regression, Random Forest, and XGBoost, have been increasingly employed to identify minimal biomarker panels with maximal predictive power [86] [89]. These approaches enhance model interpretability while reducing the risk of overfitting, particularly important for translational applications.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of lipidomic biomarker studies requires specialized reagents and analytical tools. The following table catalogues essential solutions and their applications in the workflow:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Lipidomics

Category	Specific Products	Application Purpose	Technical Notes
Chromatography	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 Column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 µm)	Lipid separation	Enhanced resolution of complex lipid mixtures
Mass Spectrometry	Thermo Scientific Q-Exactive HF Hybrid Quadrupole-Orbitrap	High-resolution lipid detection	Accurate mass measurement (<5 ppm)
Lipid Extraction	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), Methanol, Isopropanol	Comprehensive lipid extraction	MTBE method provides broad lipid coverage
Mobile Phase Additives	Ammonium formate, Formic acid	Ionization enhancement	Improves signal stability in ESI-MS
Internal Standards	SPLASH Lipidomix Mass Spec Standard	Quantification normalization	Corrects for analytical variability
Data Processing	MS-DIAL, Lipostar, Compound Discoverer	Lipid identification & quantification	Automated peak alignment and integration

The selection of appropriate internal standards represents a critical consideration in lipidomic studies. Synthetic lipid standards labeled with stable isotopes (e.g., deuterium, 13C) enable accurate quantification and account for variations in extraction efficiency and ionization suppression [83]. Commercial standard mixtures such as SPLASH Lipidomix provide coverage across major lipid classes, facilitating robust relative quantification.

Chromatographic stationary phases significantly impact lipid separation efficiency. While C18 columns provide excellent resolution for many lipid classes, specialized C30 columns offer superior separation of lipid isomers, particularly for glycerophospholipids and sphingolipids [90]. The choice of column chemistry should align with the specific research objectives and lipid classes of interest.

Mobile phase composition directly influences ionization efficiency in mass spectrometric detection. Additives such as ammonium formate (typically 10 mM) enhance the formation of adduct ions in positive ionization mode, while ammonium acetate proves beneficial for negative ionization monitoring [1] [89]. Consistent mobile phase preparation is essential for maintaining analytical reproducibility across longitudinal studies.

Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant advances, several challenges persist in the validation and translation of lipid biomarkers for diabetes and hyperuricemia. Biological variability, lipid structural diversity, and inconsistent sample processing protocols contribute to reproducibility challenges across different laboratories and platforms [83]. Agreement rates for lipid identification between different software platforms can be as low as 14-36%, highlighting the need for standardized analytical and computational workflows [83].

Future directions in the field include the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning frameworks to enhance biomarker discovery and validation. The MS2Lipid predictor has demonstrated impressive accuracy (up to 97.4%) in predicting lipid subclasses from mass spectrometric data [83]. Additionally, large-scale multi-center validation studies are essential to establish robust lipid biomarkers ready for clinical implementation.

The transition from research findings to clinically approved diagnostic tools remains limited, with very few lipid biomarkers currently approved by regulatory agencies such as the FDA [83]. Overcoming this translational gap will require interdisciplinary collaboration among lipid biologists, clinicians, bioinformaticians, and regulatory scientists to establish the rigorous evidence base needed for clinical adoption.

ROC analysis provides an indispensable statistical framework for evaluating the diagnostic potential of lipid biomarkers discovered through untargeted lipidomics approaches. In the context of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, this methodology has enabled the identification of promising lipid signatures and ratios with demonstrated discriminatory power. The continued refinement of analytical protocols, standardized validation approaches, and integration of advanced computational methods will accelerate the translation of lipidomic discoveries into clinically valuable tools for personalized management of metabolic disorders.

Pathway enrichment analysis has emerged as an indispensable bioinformatics approach for translating complex lipidomic profiles into meaningful biological context. In untargeted lipidomics studies of complex metabolic disorders such as diabetes mellitus (DM) combined with hyperuricemia (DH), this method identifies dysregulated metabolic pathways from thousands of detected lipid species, moving beyond mere cataloging to functional interpretation [1]. The core principle involves statistically testing whether certain biological pathways are overrepresented in a set of differentially expressed lipids, thereby revealing the system-level perturbations underlying disease pathophysiology. For researchers and drug development professionals, this approach facilitates the transition from descriptive lipid lists to mechanistic insights that can inform biomarker discovery and therapeutic targeting.

The analytical process systematically links identified lipid alterations to established biological pathways through database mapping and statistical evaluation, ultimately contextualizing molecular findings within cellular metabolism. This is particularly valuable in diabetes-hyperuricemia research, where lipid metabolic disruptions represent a critical intersection point between two interconnected conditions [1] [30]. By identifying which pathways are most significantly perturbed, researchers can prioritize experimental validation efforts and develop targeted interventions for these complex metabolic syndromes.

Core Concepts and Analytical Workflow

Pathway enrichment analysis operates through a defined sequence of computational steps that transform raw lipidomic data into biologically interpretable results. The process begins with differential expression analysis to identify lipids with statistically significant abundance changes between experimental conditions, typically using methods such as Student's t-test with multiple testing correction and fold change thresholds [1]. The resulting significant lipid set then undergoes identifier mapping to standardize lipid nomenclature and associate molecules with known metabolic pathways through specialized databases including KEGG, LIPID MAPS, and HMDB [37].

The core enrichment calculation employs statistical frameworks such as hypergeometric tests or gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) to determine whether specific pathways contain more significant lipids than expected by chance. The analytical output includes both statistical significance metrics (typically p-values with false discovery rate correction) and biological impact values that estimate the functional importance of identified pathway perturbations [1]. This dual-metric approach enables researchers to distinguish between subtly altered pathways and those with substantial biological consequences for the disease state under investigation.

Figure 1: Pathway enrichment analysis workflow showing the sequential steps from raw data to biological interpretation.

Experimental Protocols for Lipidomics

Sample Preparation and Lipid Extraction

Robust sample preparation is fundamental to generating reliable lipidomic data for subsequent pathway analysis. The methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) extraction protocol has emerged as a widely adopted method due to its high recovery efficiency across diverse lipid classes [1] [27]. The standardized procedure begins with aliquoting 100μL of plasma or serum into a 1.5mL microcentrifuge tube, followed by addition of 200μL of 4°C HPLC-grade water and thorough vortex mixing. Subsequently, 240μL of pre-cooled methanol is added to denature proteins, immediately followed by 800μL of MTBE for lipid solubilization [1]. The mixture undergoes low-temperature sonication for 20 minutes to ensure complete lipid extraction, then rests at room temperature for 30 minutes to facilitate phase separation.

Centrifugation at 14,000×g for 15 minutes at 10°C yields a distinct biphasic system, with the upper organic phase containing the extracted lipids. This organic layer is carefully transferred and evaporated under nitrogen stream to prevent oxidative degradation, with the resulting lipid film stored at -80°C until analysis [1] [27]. For LC-MS injection, dried lipids are reconstituted in 600μL of isopropanol/acetonitrile/water (65:30:5, v/v/v) solvent system, vortexed thoroughly, and centrifuged at 15,000×g for 10 minutes to remove insoluble particulates [27]. Quality control pools created by combining equal aliquots from all samples should be analyzed intermittently throughout the acquisition sequence to monitor instrumental performance.

UHPLC-MS/MS Analytical Conditions

Modern untargeted lipidomics relies on ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) to achieve comprehensive lipid separation and high-resolution detection. Chromatographic separation typically utilizes a Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1×100mm, 1.7μm) maintained at 45°C, with a mobile phase system consisting of (A) 10mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/water (60:40, v/v) and (B) 10mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/isopropanol (10:90, v/v) [1]. The gradient elution program progresses from 30% B to 100% B over 18 minutes at a flow rate of 0.3mL/min, effectively separating lipid classes by their hydrophobic character.

Mass spectrometric detection employs both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes with the following typical parameters: spray voltage 3.5kV/-3.5kV, capillary temperature 320°C, sheath gas flow 35arb, aux gas flow 10L/min, and mass range m/z 100-1200 [1] [37]. Data-dependent acquisition (DDA) modes automatically trigger MS/MS fragmentation for lipid identification, using collision energies stepped between 20-50eV to generate comprehensive fragmentation patterns. Instrument calibration with standard reference materials ensures mass accuracy below 5ppm, enabling confident lipid identification through database matching [27].

Data Processing and Pathway Analysis

Raw UHPLC-MS/MS data processing begins with peak detection, alignment, and normalization using specialized software platforms such as Compound Discoverer, LipidSearch, or MS-DIAL. Lipids are identified by matching exact mass (typically <5ppm tolerance) and fragmentation spectra against databases including LIPID MAPS, HMDB, and SwissLipids [91] [37]. Following lipid identification and quantification, statistical filtering identifies differentially abundant lipids using criteria combining statistical significance (p<0.05 with false discovery rate correction) and biological relevance (fold-change >1.5 or <0.67) [1].

Pathway enrichment analysis employs platforms such as MetaboAnalyst 5.0, LipidSig 2.0, or LIPID MAPS Pathway Editor to identify significantly perturbed metabolic pathways [1] [92] [91]. These tools utilize database knowledgebases mapping lipids to metabolic pathways and employ statistical frameworks (typically hypergeometric tests) to identify pathways enriched with differential lipids. The analytical output prioritizes pathways by both statistical significance (p-value) and potential biological impact (pathway impact score), enabling researchers to focus on the most mechanistically relevant metabolic disruptions [1].

Key Lipid Alterations in Diabetes-Hyperuricemia

Differential Lipid Species

Comprehensive lipidomic profiling of diabetes mellitus with hyperuricemia (DH) has revealed characteristic alterations across multiple lipid classes. A recent UHPLC-MS/MS-based study identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses, with 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites distinguishing DH patients from healthy controls [1]. The most pronounced changes included upregulation of triglycerides (13 TGs including TG(16:0/18:1/18:2)), phosphatidylethanolamines (10 PEs including PE(18:0/20:4)), and phosphatidylcholines (7 PCs including PC(36:1)), alongside downregulation of select phosphatidylinositols [1]. These specific lipid alterations represent potential biomarkers for distinguishing the combined metabolic disturbance of DH from diabetes alone.

Complementary research in hyperuricemia cohorts has identified consistent patterns, with diacylglycerols (DAG(16:0/22:5), DAG(16:0/22:6), DAG(18:1/20:5), DAG(18:1/22:6)), phosphatidylcholines (PC(16:0/20:5)), and triacylglycerols (TAG(53:0)) showing the strongest positive associations with hyperuricemia risk, while lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC(20:2)) demonstrated an inverse relationship [30]. Network analysis further revealed coordinated perturbations in triacylglycerol/phosphatidylcholine/diacylglycerol modules, suggesting functional lipid networks may be more informative than individual lipid species for characterizing metabolic dysregulation [30].

Table 1: Significantly Altered Lipid Classes in Diabetes with Hyperuricemia

Lipid Class	Representative Species	Abundance Change	Biological Implications
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2)	↑ (13 species)	Energy storage imbalance, adipose tissue dysfunction
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4)	↑ (10 species)	Membrane fluidity alterations, signaling disruption
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1)	↑ (7 species)	Membrane integrity, choline metabolism dysregulation
Phosphatidylinositols (PIs)	-	↓ (1 species)	Signaling pathway disruption, cellular communication
Diacylglycerols (DAGs)	DAG(16:0/22:6)	↑ (multiple species)	Insulin resistance promotion, protein kinase C activation

Dysregulated Metabolic Pathways

Pathway enrichment analysis of differential lipids in diabetes-hyperuricemia has consistently identified glycerophospholipid metabolism and glycerolipid metabolism as the most significantly perturbed pathways, with impact values of 0.199 and 0.014 respectively [1]. These pathways represent core metabolic processes governing membrane biogenesis, energy storage, and signaling transduction, with their disruption reflecting fundamental alterations in cellular lipid homeostasis. The convergence of findings across independent studies strengthens the evidence for their central role in the pathophysiology of combined diabetes and hyperuricemia.

Additional pathway analyses in hyperuricemia and gout have revealed broader metabolic network disruptions, including arginine metabolism, sphingolipid metabolism, and fatty acid oxidation pathways [93] [37]. These pathway disturbances connect lipidomic alterations to established disease mechanisms including oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and inflammatory signaling. The identification of these dysregulated pathways provides a systems-level framework for understanding how lipid metabolic disruptions contribute to disease progression and associated complications in diabetes-hyperuricemia.

Table 2: Dysregulated Metabolic Pathways in Diabetes-Hyperuricemia

Metabolic Pathway	Impact Value	Key Lipid Components	Biological Consequences
Glycerophospholipid Metabolism	0.199	PCs, PEs, PIs	Membrane dysfunction, impaired cellular signaling
Glycerolipid Metabolism	0.014	TGs, DAGs	Altered energy storage, insulin resistance promotion
Sphingolipid Metabolism	Not specified	Ceramides, Sphingomyelins	Apoptosis regulation, inflammatory signaling
Arginine Metabolism	Not specified	Nitric oxide derivatives	Endothelial dysfunction, vascular complications
De Novo Lipogenesis	Not specified	Palmitic acid derivatives	Fatty acid pool alterations, lipid composition changes

Visualization of Lipid Metabolic Pathways

Figure 2: Glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways showing key lipid classes altered in diabetes-hyperuricemia (highlighted in green for upregulated and red for downregulated).

Advanced Analytical Tools and Platforms

Contemporary pathway enrichment analysis leverages sophisticated bioinformatics platforms that automate the complex process of lipid identification, characterization, and pathway mapping. LipidSig 2.0 represents a significant advancement with its capacity to automatically identify lipid species and assign 29 comprehensive characteristics upon data entry, supporting 24 data processing methods for diverse lipidomic datasets [91]. This web-based platform provides integrated workflows for differential expression analysis, enrichment calculation, and network visualization, significantly enhancing analytical efficiency and depth.

The LIPID MAPS Pathway Editor enables researchers to visualize, edit, and analyze metabolic pathways through an intuitive interface that supports multiple file formats including SBML, BioPAX, and native .path files [92]. This tool facilitates the construction of custom pathway maps that incorporate experimental lipidomic data, enabling researchers to contextualize their findings within established metabolic networks or propose novel pathway relationships. Additional resources including MetaboAnalyst 5.0 provide comprehensive metabolomics analysis suites with specialized modules for pathway enrichment, metabolic network visualization, and biomarker analysis [1].

Network Analysis Approaches

Advanced network analysis methods provide systems-level perspectives on lipid interactions and pathway relationships. LipidSig 2.0 incorporates three innovative network algorithms: the "GATOM Network" for identifying crucial interaction sub-networks, "Pathway Activity Network" for calculating flux changes between lipid classes, and "Lipid Reaction Network" for mapping differential expression results onto established biosynthesis networks [91]. These complementary approaches enable researchers to move beyond individual pathway identification to understand how multiple pathway disruptions collectively contribute to metabolic dysregulation.

Network analysis in diabetes-hyperuricemia research has revealed coordinated perturbations across lipid modules, with triacylglycerols, phosphatidylcholines, and diacylglycerols forming strongly interconnected association networks [30]. These network-based approaches have identified retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) as a potential mediator linking lipid alterations to hyperuricemia, with mediation analyses suggesting RBP4 accounts for 5-14% of lipid-HUA associations [30]. Such findings demonstrate how network analysis can identify novel mechanistic connections between lipid metabolic disruptions and clinical phenotypes.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Lipidomics Pathway Analysis

Tool Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Application Purpose	Technical Considerations
Chromatography	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 Column	Lipid separation	2.1×100mm, 1.7μm particle size for optimal resolution
Mass Spectrometry	Q Exactive HF-X Orbitrap MS	High-resolution detection	Mass accuracy <5ppm, data-dependent acquisition capable
Lipid Extraction	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	Comprehensive lipid recovery	Forms biphasic system with methanol/water
Internal Standards	LysoPC(17:0), PC(17:0/17:0), TG(17:0/17:0/17:0)	Quantitation normalization	Stable isotope-labeled for minimal matrix effects
Data Processing	LipidSig 2.0, Compound Discoverer	Peak alignment, identification	Automated lipid characteristic assignment
Pathway Analysis	MetaboAnalyst 5.0, LIPID MAPS Pathway Editor	Enrichment analysis, visualization	KEGG, HMDB, LIPID MAPS database integration
Statistical Analysis	R packages (MUVR, metaBOA)	Multivariate modeling	Machine learning algorithms for biomarker identification

Pathway enrichment analysis represents a powerful framework for extracting biological meaning from complex lipidomic datasets in diabetes-hyperuricemia research. Through the systematic identification of dysregulated metabolic pathways including glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism, this approach transforms descriptive lipid lists into functional insights regarding disease mechanisms [1]. The consistent replication of these findings across independent studies strengthens their validity and highlights their potential as targets for therapeutic intervention.

For drug development professionals, these pathway analyses provide rational target selection strategies by prioritizing the metabolic disruptions most critically associated with disease pathophysiology. The identified lipid biomarkers and pathways offer opportunities for developing diagnostic panels capable of distinguishing diabetes with hyperuricemia from diabetes alone, enabling more personalized treatment approaches [1] [30]. As lipidomics technologies continue advancing, pathway enrichment methodology will remain essential for translating increasingly complex datasets into clinically actionable knowledge for metabolic disease management.

The convergence of Diabetes Mellitus (DM) and Hyperuricemia (HUA) represents a significant clinical challenge, driven by shared pathophysiological pathways of metabolic dysregulation. Central to understanding this interplay are the clinical parameters uric acid (UA), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and the lipid profile. HbA1c serves as a crucial indicator of intermediate-term glycemic control, while dyslipidemia is a common comorbidity in diabetic patients [94] [95]. Emerging evidence from untargeted lipidomics reveals that these conventional clinical parameters are underpinned by extensive alterations in the plasma lipidome, offering a deeper, systems-level perspective on the disease state [11] [96]. This technical guide synthesizes current research to elucidate the complex correlations between UA, HbA1c, and lipid profiles within the context of DM and HUA, providing researchers and drug development professionals with advanced methodologies and analytical frameworks for investigating this multifaceted relationship.

Clinical and Lipidomic Interrelationships

Correlation Between HbA1c and Conventional Lipid Parameters

Large-scale clinical studies consistently demonstrate a statistically significant correlation between HbA1c levels and traditional lipid measures, indicating a state of hyperglycemia-induced dyslipidemia.

Table 1: Summary of HbA1c and Lipid Profile Correlations from Clinical Studies

Clinical Parameter	Correlation with HbA1c	Study Details	Key Findings
Total Cholesterol (TC)	Positive [95]	N = 26,857; Linear regression	TC increased with rising HbA1c (p < 0.001)
Triglycerides (TG)	Positive [94] [95]	N = 1,000; Comparative analysis	Significant increase in diabetics (HbA1c ≥6.5) vs. prediabetics; most common lipid abnormality
LDL-C	Positive [95]	N = 26,857; Linear regression	LDL-C increased with rising HbA1c (p < 0.001)
HDL-C	Negative [95]	N = 26,857; Linear regression	HDL-C showed a downward trend with increasing HbA1c (p < 0.001)
VLDL-C	Positive [94]	N = 1,000; Comparative analysis	Statistically significant increase in diabetics vs. prediabetics

A study of 1,000 individuals found that diabetes was significantly associated with dyslipidemia, with raised triglyceride and VLDL levels being the most common findings [94]. The mean HbA1c among the diabetic participants in this study was 8.3% [94]. Furthermore, a larger retrospective study of 26,857 participants confirmed these relationships through linear regression analysis, showing that as HbA1c levels rose, concentrations of TC, TG, and LDL-C increased, while HDL-C decreased [95]. This pattern suggests that poor glycemic control is a key driver of atherogenic dyslipidemia, which may contribute to the increased incidence of cardiovascular events in diabetic patients [94].

Integration of Uric Acid into the Clinical Picture

Hyperuricemia frequently coexists with diabetes, and this combination (DH) is associated with a more severe metabolic disturbance. Research indicates that the risk of diabetes increases by 17% for every 1 mg/dL increase in serum uric acid [11]. Furthermore, elevated uric acid levels in diabetic patients are closely associated with complications such as diabetic nephropathy, adverse cardiac events, and peripheral vascular disease [11]. The relationship is bidirectional; disorders of purine metabolism and/or decreased uric acid excretion can lead to HUA, which in turn can exacerbate lipid abnormalities and insulin resistance [11].

Advanced Lipidomic Profiling in DM and HUA

Untargeted lipidomics provides a powerful tool for moving beyond conventional lipid panels to discover novel lipid biomarkers and pathways implicated in DM and HUA.

Table 2: Key Lipidomic Alterations in Diabetes with Hyperuricemia (DH) vs. Controls

Lipid Category	Specific Lipid Examples	Change in DH vs. NGT	Analytical Platform
Triglycerides (TGs)	TG(16:0/18:1/18:2) and 12 others	Significantly Upregulated	UHPLC-MS/MS
Phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs)	PE(18:0/20:4) and 9 others	Significantly Upregulated	UHPLC-MS/MS
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	PC(36:1) and 6 others	Significantly Upregulated	UHPLC-MS/MS
Phosphatidylinositol (PI)	Not Specified	Downregulated	UHPLC-MS/MS

A study employing ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) identified 1,361 lipid molecules across 30 subclasses [11]. When comparing patients with combined diabetes and hyperuricemia (DH) to those with normal glucose tolerance (NGT), 31 significantly altered lipid metabolites were pinpointed [11]. The most relevant individual metabolites included 13 triglycerides (TGs), 10 phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and 7 phosphatidylcholines (PCs) that were significantly upregulated, while one phosphatidylinositol (PI) was downregulated [11]. This distinct lipidomic signature in DH patients underscores a profound systemic metabolic disruption that is not fully captured by standard clinical chemistry.

Experimental Protocols for Untargeted Lipidomics

Sample Collection and Pre-processing

Protocol Overview: This protocol is designed for the preparation of plasma samples for UHPLC-MS/MS-based untargeted lipidomic analysis [11].

• Sample Collection: Collect venous blood (e.g., 5 mL) from fasting subjects into anticoagulant tubes (e.g., EDTA or heparin).
• Plasma Separation: Centrifuge the blood samples at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes at room temperature to separate plasma from cellular components.
• Aliquoting and Storage: Carefully aliquot the upper plasma layer (e.g., 0.2 mL) into cryogenic vials. Flash-freeze the aliquots and store them at -80°C to prevent lipid degradation.
• Lipid Extraction (MTBE/Methanol Method):
  • Thaw samples on ice and vortex to ensure homogeneity.
  • Pipette 100 μL of plasma into a 1.5 mL microcentrifuge tube.
  • Add 200 μL of ice-cold water and vortex.
  • Add 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol and vortex thoroughly.
  • Add 800 μL of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and vortex.
  • Sonicate the mixture in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes.
  • Let the solution stand at room temperature for 30 minutes to facilitate phase separation.
  • Centrifuge at 14,000 g for 15 minutes at 10°C.
  • Collect the upper organic phase (which contains the lipids) into a new tube.
  • Evaporate the organic solvent to dryness under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas.
  • Reconstitute the dried lipid extract in a suitable solvent (e.g., 100 μL isopropanol) for MS analysis.
• Quality Control (QC): Prepare a pooled QC sample by combining equal volumes of all individual samples. Inject the QC sample repeatedly at regular intervals throughout the analytical run to monitor instrument stability and data quality.

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis Conditions

Chromatographic Conditions [11]:

• Column: Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 μm particle size).
• Mobile Phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/water.
• Mobile Phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate in acetonitrile/isopropanol.
• Gradient: A specific linear gradient (details to be optimized) is used to elute lipids from the column, typically increasing the percentage of mobile phase B over time.
• Temperature: Column temperature maintained at 45-55°C.
• Injection Volume: Typically 1-5 μL.

Mass Spectrometry Conditions:

• Ionization: Electrospray Ionization (ESI) in both positive and negative ion modes to capture a broad range of lipid classes.
• Mass Analyzer: High-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q-TOF or Orbitrap).
• Scanning: Data-Dependent Acquisition (DDA) or Data-Independent Acquisition (DIA) modes are employed to fragment precursor ions and obtain structural information for lipid identification.

Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

• Peak Picking and Alignment: Use software (e.g., MS-DIAL, XCMS) to detect lipid features, align them across samples, and correct for retention time shifts.
• Lipid Identification: Annotate lipid species by matching their accurate mass and MS/MS fragmentation spectra against databases such as LIPID MAPS.
• Differential Analysis: Apply univariate statistical tests (e.g., Student's t-test) and calculate the multiple of change (FC) to identify lipids that are significantly altered between experimental groups.
• Multivariate Analysis: Employ Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Orthogonal Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) to visualize group separations and identify lipids contributing most to the variance.
• Pathway Analysis: Input the list of significantly altered lipids into pathway analysis tools (e.g., MetaboAnalyst 5.0) to identify enriched metabolic pathways, such as glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism [11].

Visualization of Workflows and Pathways

Integrated Research Workflow

The following diagram outlines the comprehensive workflow from clinical phenotyping to lipidomic integration, illustrating the process of discovering biomarkers and pathways linking hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia, and lipid dysregulation.

Perturbed Metabolic Pathways

This diagram maps the key lipid metabolic pathways found to be significantly disturbed in patients with diabetes and hyperuricemia, based on lipidomic studies.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Clinical Lipidomics

Item	Function / Application	Example Specifications / Notes
UHPLC System	High-resolution chromatographic separation of complex lipid extracts.	C18 reverse-phase column (e.g., 1.7 μm, 2.1x100 mm); stable binary pump and autosampler.
High-Resolution Mass Spectrometer	Accurate mass measurement and structural elucidation via MS/MS.	Q-TOF, Orbitrap, or triple quadrupole systems; ESI ion source.
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	Lipid extraction solvent; part of the MTBE/methanol method.	High-purity HPLC/MS grade.
Ammonium Formate	Mobile phase additive for LC-MS to improve ionization efficiency.	10 mM concentration in acetonitrile/water and acetonitrile/isopropanol.
Internal Standard Mix	Quantification and quality control; corrects for variability in extraction and ionization.	Stable isotope-labeled lipids spanning multiple classes (e.g., d7-TG, d5-PC).
LIPID MAPS Database	Reference database for the identification of lipid species based on mass and fragmentation patterns.	Critical for annotating untargeted lipidomic data.
MetaboAnalyst 5.0	Web-based platform for comprehensive pathway analysis and statistical integration of lipidomic data.	Used to identify enriched pathways like glycerophospholipid metabolism.

The correlation between UA, HbA1c, and lipid profiles is a cornerstone for understanding the intertwined pathologies of diabetes and hyperuricemia. Conventional biochemistry establishes that poor glycemic control (high HbA1c) is strongly linked to an atherogenic lipid profile characterized by elevated TG, VLDL, and LDL, and lowered HDL [94] [95]. The integration of untargeted lipidomics reveals that this relationship is far more complex, showing specific alterations in glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid metabolism pathways in patients with comorbid conditions [11]. The perturbed lipid species, such as TGs, PCs, and PEs, serve as a molecular signature of the disease state, offering a reservoir of potential biomarkers for early detection, risk stratification, and monitoring of therapeutic interventions. Moving forward, the fusion of these deep lipidomic datasets with other 'omics' technologies and detailed clinical phenomes—clinical trans-omics—will be paramount in unraveling the precise molecular mechanisms and advancing personalized therapeutic strategies for these complex metabolic disorders [97].

Urate-lowering therapy (ULT), a cornerstone treatment for hyperuricemia and gout, demonstrates effects that extend beyond serum uric acid reduction to encompass significant modifications in plasma lipidomes. Emerging lipidomic evidence reveals that ULT corrects profound dysregulation in specific lipid classes, particularly glycerophospholipids and lysophospholipids, which are implicated in the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases. This whitepaper synthesizes findings from clinical and lipidomic studies, detailing the quantitative lipid alterations, underlying molecular pathways, and methodological frameworks for investigating ULT-induced lipidomic changes. The integration of these findings within the context of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia research provides a critical resource for drug development professionals seeking to understand the pleiotropic effects of ULT and develop novel therapeutic strategies for metabolic disorders.

Hyperuricemia, characterized by elevated serum uric acid (SUA) levels, frequently coexists with diabetes mellitus (DM) and other metabolic conditions, creating a complex pathophysiology that amplifies cardiovascular and renal risks [84] [98]. Lipidomics, a comprehensive approach to profiling lipid species within biological systems, has unveiled significant disruptions in lipid metabolism associated with hyperuricemia [1] [18]. Urate-lowering therapies (ULT), including xanthine oxidase inhibitors like allopurinol and febuxostat, are primarily prescribed to manage SUA levels. However, contemporary research indicates these agents exert substantial effects on the plasma lipidome, potentially contributing to their clinical benefits [23] [99]. This technical guide examines the lipidomic alterations induced by ULT, framed within a broader research context of plasma untargeted lipidomics in diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia (DH), to inform targeted drug development and biomarker discovery.

Lipidomic Methodology: Analytical Workflows and Platforms

Robust lipidomic profiling relies on advanced analytical technologies and standardized protocols to ensure accurate identification and quantification of lipid species.

Core Analytical Workflow

The standard workflow for untargeted plasma lipidomics involves sample preparation, chromatographic separation, mass spectrometric analysis, and data processing [1] [18]. Adherence to this protocol is critical for generating reproducible and biologically relevant data.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Sample Preparation and Lipid Extraction

Plasma samples should be collected after fasting and processed immediately. Critical steps include:

• Pre-processing: Thaw samples on ice and vortex. Combine 100 μL plasma with 200 μL of 4°C water [1].
• Lipid Extraction: Add 240 μL of pre-cooled methanol followed by 800 μL of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). Sonicate in a low-temperature water bath for 20 minutes and incubate at room temperature for 30 minutes [1].
• Phase Separation: Centrifuge at 14,000× g for 15 minutes at 10°C. Collect the upper organic phase and dry under a nitrogen stream [1].

UHPLC-MS/MS Analysis

• Chromatography: Utilize a Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 × 100 mm, 1.7 μm) maintained at 45°C. The mobile phase should consist of acetonitrile/water (60:40, v/v) with 10 mM ammonium formate (A) and isopropanol/acetonitrile (90:10, v/v) with 10 mM ammonium formate (B) [1].
• Mass Spectrometry: Operate in both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes. Set the mass range to m/z 150-1500 for MS1 and m/z 50-1500 for MS2. Use data-dependent acquisition (DDA) for MS/MS fragmentation [1].

Data Processing and Statistical Analysis

• Peak Alignment and Identification: Process raw data using software such as MS-DIAL or Lipostar for peak picking, alignment, and lipid identification against databases like LIPID MAPS [18].
• Multivariate Analysis: Employ orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) to identify lipid species contributing to group separation. Validate models with cross-validation and permutation tests [1].
• Pathway Analysis: Use platforms like MetaboAnalyst 5.0 for metabolic pathway enrichment analysis based on KEGG databases [100].

Key Lipidomic Changes Following ULT

ULT induces specific, quantifiable alterations in plasma lipid profiles, with particular significance in patients with concurrent metabolic conditions.

Lipid Class Alterations in Hyperuricemia and Gout

Table 1: Lipidomic Profile Changes in Hyperuricemia and Gout Patients, and the Effects of ULT

Lipid Category	Specific Lipid Classes	Change in HUA/Gout vs. Healthy	Effect of ULT	Clinical Significance
Glycerophospholipids	Phosphatidylethanolamines (PE)	Significantly upregulated [23]	Corrects imbalance [23]	Membrane integrity, cellular signaling
	Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	Altered [1]	Partially normalized
Lysophospholipids	Lysophosphatidylcholine Plasmalogens/Plasmanyls	Significantly downregulated [23]	Corrects imbalance [23]	Antioxidant properties, membrane dynamics
Glycerolipids	Triglycerides (TG)	Upregulated in DH [1]	Improved profile [99]	Energy storage, cardiovascular risk
Sterol Lipids	LDL-Cholesterol	Elevated in CKD with HUA [99]	Significant decrease [99]	Atherogenesis, cardiovascular risk
	HDL-Cholesterol	Reduced in CKD with HUA [99]	Significant increase [99]	Reverse cholesterol transport, cardiovascular protection

Quantitative Clinical Outcomes

Table 2: Effect of ULT on Serum Lipid Profiles in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease (After 12 Months) [99]

Lipid Parameter	ULT Group (Mean ± SD)	Non-ULT Group (Mean ± SD)	Mean Difference [95% CI]	P-value
LDL-c (mmol/L)	2.14 ± 0.32	2.42 ± 0.32	-0.28 [-0.36 to -0.18]	<0.001
Total Cholesterol (mmol/L)	4.18 ± 0.44	4.47 ± 0.39	-0.29 [-0.40 to -0.16]	<0.001
Triglycerides (mmol/L)	2.43 ± 0.62	2.63 ± 0.58	-0.20 [-0.37 to -0.03]	0.016
HDL-c (mmol/L)	1.41 ± 0.13	1.23 ± 0.15	+0.18 [0.13 to 0.21]	<0.001

Impact of Patient Factors on Lipidomic Response

Age and Disease Status

Lipidomic disturbances are more pronounced in early-onset disease. Studies show that patients with hyperuricemia detected ≤40 years (HUA≤40) and gout patients with disease onset ≤40 years (Gout≤40) exhibit more profound glycerophospholipid dysregulation compared to later-onset patients or healthy controls. ULT appears to partially correct this imbalance, particularly in these younger cohorts [23].

Sex-Specific Effects

Sex modulates the lipid response to ULT. In a study of CKD patients, males exhibited a more robust response to ULT than females, demonstrating a greater reduction in LDL-c (-0.28 mmol/L) and a more pronounced increase in HDL-c levels (+0.23 mmol/L) [99].

Biological Pathways and Molecular Mechanisms

ULT influences lipid metabolism through interconnected pathways, as summarized below.

Uric Acid-Mediated Mechanisms

Elevated uric acid promotes endoplasmic reticulum stress and activates the transcription factor sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SREBP-1c), a master regulator of hepatic lipogenesis [23]. By lowering SUA, ULT mitigates this activation, reducing the synthesis of fatty acids and triglycerides. Furthermore, hyperuricemia upregulates lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase 3 (LPCAT3), disturbing lysophospholipid metabolism. ULT helps normalize LPCAT3 activity, restoring phospholipid balance [23].

Glycerophospholipid Metabolism

This pathway is centrally perturbed in diabetes with hyperuricemia (DH) [1]. ULT-induced changes in phosphatidylcholines (PCs) and phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs) indicate a potential restoration of cell membrane integrity and signaling functions, which are critical in metabolic homeostasis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Lipidomics Studies of ULT Effects

Reagent/Material	Specification/Example	Critical Function	Reference
ULT Agents	Febuxostat (≥98%), Allopurinol (≥98%)	Pharmacological inhibition of xanthine oxidase to modulate serum uric acid and observe downstream lipidomic effects.	[99]
Lipid Extraction Solvent	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), HPLC grade	Primary solvent for liquid-liquid lipid extraction, enabling high recovery of diverse lipid classes from plasma.	[1]
Chromatography Column	Waters ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (1.7 μm, 2.1x100 mm)	High-resolution reversed-phase separation of complex lipid mixtures prior to mass spectrometry.	[1]
Mobile Phase Additive	Ammonium formate (10 mM), LC-MS grade	Enhances ionization efficiency in the ESI source and promotes adduct formation ([M+CHO₂]⁻) for stable signals.	[1]
Internal Standards	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard	Correction for matrix effects and ionization variability, ensuring semi-quantitative accuracy.	[23]
Quality Control Material	NIST SRM 1950 - Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma	Benchmarks instrument performance and method reproducibility across analytical batches.	[23]

Lipidomics has unequivocally demonstrated that urate-lowering therapies induce significant, clinically relevant changes in the plasma lipidome that extend beyond uric acid reduction. The most consistent findings include the normalization of glycerophospholipid metabolism, specifically upregulation of phosphatidylethanolamines and correction of lysophosphatidylcholine plasmalogen deficiencies, alongside improvements in conventional lipid parameters such as LDL-c and HDL-c. These changes are mediated through mechanisms involving oxidative stress reduction, SREBP-1c modulation, and LPCAT3 normalization. Future research should prioritize large-scale, longitudinal lipidomic studies to validate these biomarkers, elucidate the precise molecular cascades linking urate metabolism to lipid regulation, and explore the therapeutic potential of ULT in managing dyslipidemia in non-gout populations. The integration of lipidomics into clinical trials will be essential for translating these findings into personalized treatment strategies for patients with intertwined metabolic, renal, and cardiovascular conditions.

Conclusion

Plasma untargeted lipidomics has unveiled profound disruptions in lipid metabolism characterizing the comorbidity of diabetes mellitus and hyperuricemia, with glycerophospholipid and glycerolipid pathways emerging as central hubs of metabolic dysregulation. The consistent identification of specific lipid species—including elevated TGs, PEs, and PCs—provides a robust signature for distinguishing disease states and offers promising biomarker candidates for early detection and risk stratification. Methodologically, the integration of untargeted discovery with targeted validation creates a powerful framework for translating lipidomic findings into clinically actionable insights. Future research directions should focus on longitudinal studies to establish causal relationships, investigation of tissue-specific lipid dynamics, development of standardized analytical protocols, and exploration of lipid-mediated mechanisms as targets for novel therapeutic interventions. These advances position lipidomics as an indispensable tool for deciphering metabolic disease complexity and paving the way for personalized medicine approaches in diabetes and hyperuricemia management.

References

• 1. UHPLC-MS/MS-based plasma untargeted lipidomic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1656458/full]
• 2. Clinical serum lipidomic profiling revealed potential lipid ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66157-z]
• 3. Lipidomic and transcriptomic profiling reveal alterations in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-12077-5]
• 4. Lipidomic profiling identifies signatures of metabolic risk [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396419307169]
• 5. a comprehensive map of lipid mediator metabolic pathways [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7840682/]
• 6. Cross-Platform Comparison of Untargeted and Targeted ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35807-4]
• 7. Lipidomics profiling reveals distinct patterns of plasma ... [https://alzres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13195-023-01359-7]
• 8. Quantitative lipidomic analysis of plasma and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009308415000341]
• 9. Large-scale lipidomics identifies associations between ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6629294/]
• 10. MS-based lipidomics of human blood plasma - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6168311/]
• 11. UHPLC-MS/MS-based plasma untargeted lipidomic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1656458/abstract]
• 12. Remodeling glycerophospholipids affects obesity-related ... [https://www.jci.org/articles/view/148176]
• 13. The effect of lipid metabolism disorder on patients with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10598229/]
• 14. Glycerolipid Metabolism and Signaling in Health and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18606873/]
• 15. Lipid droplet dynamics in type 2 diabetes and its complications [https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12944-025-02747-8]
• 16. Metabolic remodeling of glycerophospholipids acts as a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9846071/]
• 17. Metabolic remodeling of glycerophospholipids acts as a ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36686441/]
• 18. Exploring lipidomics in biomarker discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009898125005777?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 19. Investigation of pathogenesis of hyperuricemia based on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18361-y]
• 20. Lipidomics based on UHPLC/Q-TOF-MS to characterize ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10884851/]
• 21. BioPAN: a web-based tool to explore mammalian lipidome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7848852/]
• 22. Alterations in lipidome profiles distinguish early-onset ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38042879/]
• 23. Alterations in lipidome profiles distinguish early-onset ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10693150/]
• 24. Early Changes in the Plasma Lipidome of People at Very ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11940131/]
• 25. Lipidomic Assessment of Plasma and Placenta of Women with ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110747]
• 26. Population-based plasma lipidomics reveals developmental ... [https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-022-02432-y]
• 27. Untargeted and Targeted Lipidomics Unveil Dynamic Lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11596168/]
• 28. Evaluation of levels of uric acid and lipid profile in hospitalized ... [https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-023-06429-5]
• 29. An Efficient Single Phase Method for the Extraction of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4495379/]
• 30. Associations of Plasma Lipidomic Profiles with Uric Acid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11584823/]
• 31. Plasma Lipidomics Identifies Unique Lipid Signatures and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8581228/]
• 32. A simple and rapid extraction of lipids in plasma using spin ... [https://jast-journal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40543-023-00388-z]
• 33. The Hitchhiker's Guide to Untargeted Lipidomics Analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8624948/]
• 34. Plasma lipidomics for biomarker identification in non-muscle ... [https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12885-025-15019-6]
• 35. Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-MS/MS ... [https://fjps.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43094-019-0007-8]
• 36. Recent Advances in Liquid Chromatography–Mass ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12204688/]
• 37. Exploring the mechanism underlying hyperuricemia using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-34426-y]
• 38. Improved Performance of Ultrahigh-Pressure Liquid ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/improved-performance-of-ultrahigh-pressure-liquid-chromatography-mass-spectrometry-uhplc-ms-hyphenated-systems]
• 39. Grape Lipidomics: An Extensive Profiling thorough UHPLC ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8706896/]
• 40. Ultrahigh-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Mass ... [https://www.spectroscopyonline.com/view/ultrahigh-performance-liquid-chromatography-mass-spectrometry-lipidomics]
• 41. Development and validation of a green/blue UHPLC-MS ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15614-4]
• 42. A relative quantitative positive/negative ion switching ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421409/]
• 43. Evaluation of polarity switching for untargeted lipidomics ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570023222001040]
• 44. A relative quantitative positive/negative ion switching ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28496395/]
• 45. Mass Spectrometry Acquisition Mode Showdown: DDA vs. ... [https://www.metwarebio.com/mass-spectrometry-acquisition-modes-dda-vs-dia-vs-mrm-vs-prm/]
• 46. Evaluation of Different Tandem MS Acquisition Modes to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7697060/]
• 47. Data acquisition methods for non-targeted screening in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993623000535]
• 48. Associations of Plasma Lipidomic Profiles with Uric Acid ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43657-024-00157-x]
• 49. Lipidomics reveals potential biomarkers and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11930151/]
• 50. Statistical methods and resources for biomarker discovery ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-023-05383-0]
• 51. PCA vs PLS-DA vs OPLS-DA: Which One to Choose for ... [https://www.metwarebio.com/metabolomic-analyses-comparison-of-pca-pls-da-and-opls-da/]
• 52. OPLS vs PCA: Explaining Differences or Grouping Data? [https://www.sartorius.com/en/knowledge/science-snippets/explaining-differences-or-grouping-data-opls-da-vs-pca-data-analysis-507204]
• 53. Benchmarking One-Phase Lipid Extractions for Plasma ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9475500/]
• 54. A comparison of five lipid extraction solvent systems for ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3679384/]
• 55. Comprehensive lipidome of human plasma using minimal ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12062770/]
• 56. NAFPD exacerbation by hyperlipidemia combined with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11746073/]
• 57. High-Throughput Untargeted Serum Metabolomics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8216829/]
• 58. Analytical quality control in targeted lipidomics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267025006191]
• 59. A Comprehensive and Reproducible Untargeted Lipidomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6572761/]
• 60. Unveiling Lipidomics Quantitative Analysis: What, Why, ... [https://dmpkservice.wuxiapptec.com/articles/479-unveiling-lipidomics-quantitative-analysis-what-why-and-how/]
• 61. Strategies for the Detection and Elimination of Matrix ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/strategies-detection-and-elimination-matrix-effects-quantitative-lc-ms-analysis]
• 62. Compensate for or Minimize Matrix Effects? Strategies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7412464/]
• 63. Standard addition with internal standardisation as an ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002196731830459X]
• 64. Software tool for internal standard based normalization of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6489209/]
• 65. LipidMatch Normalizer [https://secim.ufl.edu/secim-tools/lipidmatch-normalizer/]
• 66. Uncovering Matrix Effects on Lipid Analyses in MALDI Imaging ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7383219/]
• 67. Optimization of a liquid chromatography-ion mobility-high ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039914021007293]
• 68. Improved lipid analysis using a 2D-LC-MS system with ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570023224001375]
• 69. Ultrahigh-Performance Capillary Liquid Chromatography ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6980658/]
• 70. Optimization and Validation of the UPLC Method for Rapid, ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11840761/]
• 71. Enhancing Lipidomics With High-Resolution Ion Mobility ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12445972/]
• 72. Fast scanning quantitative lipidomics analysis using the ... [https://sciex.com/tech-notes/life-science-research/lipidomics/fast-scanning-quantitative-lipidomics-analysis-using-the-sciex-7]
• 73. Assessing and mitigating batch effects in large-scale omics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11447944/]
• 74. Batch Effect Correction [https://www.10xgenomics.com/analysis-guides/introduction-batch-effect-correction]
• 75. An order-preserving batch-effect correction method based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12207412/]
• 76. Highly effective batch effect correction method for RNA-seq ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S200103702400432X]
• 77. Identifying and mitigating batch effects in whole genome ... [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-017-1756-z]
• 78. From big data to big insights: statistical and bioinformatic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10954412/]
• 79. Validation of a multiplexed and targeted lipidomics assay ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35489416/]
• 80. Lipidomics Visualization Dashboard [https://docs.polly.elucidata.io/Apps/Lipidomics%20Data/Lipidomics%20Visualization%20Dashboard.html]
• 81. Lipidomics and metabolomics investigation into the effect of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11416290/]
• 82. Comprehensive Guide to ROC Curve: Theory, Applications ... [https://www.metwarebio.com/roc-curve-guide-theory-applications-implementation/]
• 83. Exploring lipidomics in biomarker discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009898125005777]
• 84. Interrelationship Between Dyslipidemia and Hyperuricemia ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562356/]
• 85. Correlation between remnant cholesterol and hyperuricemia ... [https://lipidworld.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12944-024-02148-3]
• 86. The potential of the serum uric acid to high-density ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1499417/full]
• 87. Serum uric acid to high‑density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10238-025-01893-8]
• 88. Untargeted Lipidomic Reveals Potential Biomarkers in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/30/4/850]
• 89. Metabolomics and lipidomics of plasma biomarkers for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1526740/full]
• 90. Application of Lipidomics for Assessing Tissue Lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8591777/]
• 91. LipidSig 2.0: integrating lipid characteristic insights into ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11223864/]
• 92. Pathway Editor Brief Tutorial - version 1.0 beta 2 [https://www.lipidmaps.org/pathways/bpwbtutorial.html]
• 93. Serum Metabolomics Identifies Dysregulated Pathways and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33760368/]
• 94. Relation Between HbA1c and Lipid Profile Among ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9870815/]
• 95. Association Between Glycated Hemoglobin and the Lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11321356/]
• 96. Clinical lipidomics: realizing the potential of lipid profiling - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8528718/]
• 97. Clinical lipidomics: a new way to diagnose human diseases [https://clintransmed.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40169-018-0190-9]
• 98. Hyperuricemia and Insulin Resistance: Interplay ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8937/5/3/30]
• 99. Assessment of urate-lowering therapies on lipid metabolism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12454035/]
• 100. 基于UHPLC-MS/MS技术的质谱方法在同时患有糖尿病和高 ... [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-11/20251114000216138.htm]