Edoardo Saccenti

Dr. Edoardo Saccenti

Laboratory of Systems and Synthetic Biology - Wageningen University and Research
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

21Years (2006-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
27 June 2019 in Metabolites
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AEAbdul-Hamid Emwas
Abdul-Hamid Emwas
RRRaja Roy
Raja Roy
Ryan McKayRyan McKay
Ryan McKay
Leonardo TenoriLeonardo Tenori
Leonardo Tenori
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
David Scott WishartDavid Scott Wishart
David Scott Wishart
Over the past two decades, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) has emerged as one of the three principal analytical techniques used in metabolomics (the other two being gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and liquid chromatography coupled with single-stage mass spectrometry (LC-MS)). The relative ease of sample preparation, the ability to quantify metabolite levels, the high level of experimental reproducibility, and the inherently nondestructive nature of NMR spectroscopy have made it the preferred platform for long-term or large-scale clinical metabolomic studies. These advantages, however, are often outweighed by the fact that most other analytical techniques, including both LC-MS and GC-MS, are inherently more sensitive than NMR, with lower limits of detection typically being 10 to 100 times better. This review is intended to introduce readers to the field of NMR-based metabolomics and to highlight both the advantages and disadvantages of NMR spectroscopy for metabolomic studies. It will also explore some of the unique strengths of NMR-based metabolomics, particularly with regard to isotope selection/detection, mixture deconvolution via 2D spectroscopy, automation, and the ability to noninvasively analyze native tissue specimens. Finally, this review will highlight a number of emerging NMR techniques and technologies that are being used to strengthen its utility and overcome its inherent limitations in metabolomic applications.

8 July 2011 in Metabolomics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ESEwa Szymańska
Ewa Szymańska
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
ASAge K. Smilde
Age K. Smilde
JWJohan Westerhuis
Johan Westerhuis
Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) is a PLS regression method with a special binary ‘dummy’ y-variable and it is commonly used for classification purposes and biomarker selection in metabolomics studies. Several statistical approaches are currently in use to validate outcomes of PLS-DA analyses e.g. double cross validation procedures or permutation testing. However, there is a great inconsistency in the optimization and the assessment of performance of PLS-DA models due to many different diagnostic statistics currently employed in metabolomics data analyses. In this paper, properties of four diagnostic statistics of PLS-DA, namely the number of misclassifications (NMC), the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC), Q 2 and Discriminant Q 2 (DQ 2) are discussed. All four diagnostic statistics are used in the optimization and the performance assessment of PLS-DA models of three different-size metabolomics data sets obtained with two different types of analytical platforms and with different levels of known differences between two groups: control and case groups. Statistical significance of obtained PLS-DA models was evaluated with permutation testing. PLS-DA models obtained with NMC and AUROC are more powerful in detecting very small differences between groups than models obtained with Q 2 and Discriminant Q 2 (DQ 2). Reproducibility of obtained PLS-DA models outcomes, models complexity and permutation test distributions are also investigated to explain this phenomenon. DQ 2 and Q 2 (in contrary to NMC and AUROC) prefer PLS-DA models with lower complexity and require higher number of permutation tests and submodels to accurately estimate statistical significance of the model performance. NMC and AUROC seem more efficient and more reliable diagnostic statistics and should be recommended in two group discrimination metabolomic studies.

26 October 2013 in Metabolomics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
HHHuub C. J. Hoefsloot
Huub C. J. Hoefsloot
ASAge K. Smilde
Age K. Smilde
JWJohan A. Westerhuis
Johan A. Westerhuis
MHMargriet M. W. B. Hendriks
Margriet M. W. B. Hendriks

3 March 2022 in Frontiers in Microbiology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JKJannigje Gerdien Kers
Jannigje Gerdien Kers
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
Background: Since sequencing techniques have become less expensive, larger sample sizes are applicable for microbiota studies. The aim of this study is to show how, and to what extent, different diversity metrics and different compositions of the microbiota influence the needed sample size to observe dissimilar groups. Empirical 16S rRNA amplicon sequence data obtained from animal experiments, observational human data, and simulated data were used to perform retrospective power calculations. A wide variation of alpha diversity and beta diversity metrics were used to compare the different microbiota datasets and the effect on the sample size.Results: Our data showed that beta diversity metrics are the most sensitive to observe differences as compared with alpha diversity metrics. The structure of the data influenced which alpha metrics are the most sensitive. Regarding beta diversity, the Bray–Curtis metric is in general the most sensitive to observe differences between groups, resulting in lower sample size and potential publication bias.Conclusion: We recommend performing power calculations and to use multiple diversity metrics as an outcome measure. To improve microbiota studies, awareness needs to be raised on the sensitivity and bias for microbiota research outcomes created by the used metrics rather than biological differences. We have seen that different alpha and beta diversity metrics lead to different study power: because of this, one could be naturally tempted to try all possible metrics until one or more are found that give a statistically significant test result, i.e., p-value < α. This way of proceeding is one of the many forms of the so-called p-value hacking. To this end, in our opinion, the only way to protect ourselves from (the temptation of) p-hacking would be to publish a statistical plan before experiments are initiated, describing the outcomes of interest and the corresponding statistical analyses to be performed.

27 February 2018 in Metabolomics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Antonio RosatoAntonio Rosato
Antonio Rosato
Leonardo TenoriLeonardo Tenori
Leonardo Tenori
MCMARTA CASCANTE
MARTA CASCANTE
PCPedro Ramon De Atauri Carulla
Pedro Ramon De Atauri Carulla
VSVitor A. P. Martins dos Santos
Vitor A. P. Martins dos Santos
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
Introduction Metabolomics is a well-established tool in systems biology, especially in the top–down approach. Metabolomics experiments often results in discovery studies that provide intriguing biological hypotheses but rarely offer mechanistic explanation of such findings. In this light, the interpretation of metabolomics data can be boosted by deploying systems biology approaches. Objectives This review aims to provide an overview of systems biology approaches that are relevant to metabolomics and to discuss some successful applications of these methods. Methods We review the most recent applications of systems biology tools in the field of metabolomics, such as network inference and analysis, metabolic modelling and pathways analysis. Results We offer an ample overview of systems biology tools that can be applied to address metabolomics problems. The characteristics and application results of these tools are discussed also in a comparative manner. Conclusions Systems biology-enhanced analysis of metabolomics data can provide insights into the molecular mechanisms originating the observed metabolic profiles and enhance the scientific impact of metabolomics studies.

16 January 2020 in Scientific Reports
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Edoardo SaccentiEdoardo Saccenti
Edoardo Saccenti
MHMargriet Hendriks
Margriet Hendriks
ASAge K. Smilde
Age K. Smilde
Correlation coefficients are abundantly used in the life sciences. Their use can be limited to simple exploratory analysis or to construct association networks for visualization but they are also basic ingredients for sophisticated multivariate data analysis methods. It is therefore important to have reliable estimates for correlation coefficients. In modern life sciences, comprehensive measurement techniques are used to measure metabolites, proteins, gene-expressions and other types of data. All these measurement techniques have errors. Whereas in the old days, with simple measurements, the errors were also simple, that is not the case anymore. Errors are heterogeneous, non-constant and not independent. This hampers the quality of the estimated correlation coefficients seriously. We will discuss the different types of errors as present in modern comprehensive life science data and show with theory, simulations and real-life data how these affect the correlation coefficients. We will briefly discuss ways to improve the estimation of such coefficients.