Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Aug 19;21(8):e0356269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0356269

Targeted metabolomics of postmortem human cardiac tissue using the Biocrates MxP Quant 500 kit

Oscar Emil Puntervold 1,*,#, Pia Johansson Heinsvig 1,#, Mads Gustav Skytte 1, Kristine Boisen Olsen 1, Jytte Banner 1, Jacob Tfelt-Hansen 1,2, Kristian Linnet 1, Marie Mardal 1,3
Editor: Nguyen Phuoc Long4
PMCID: PMC13489478  PMID: 42616716

Abstract

Aim

This proof-of-concept study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and analytical performance of the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit, originally developed for biofluids, to postmortem human cardiac tissue obtained from forensic autopsies, evaluating its potential as a standardized, cost-effective alternative to complex, resource-intensive metabolomics workflows.

Methods

Left ventricular tissue samples were collected from 40 forensic autopsy cases, comprising 10 decedents with type 2 diabetes, 20 decedents with ischemic heart disease without type 2 diabetes, and 10 control cases without cardiac pathology. Cases were selected to represent the range of myocardial conditions commonly encountered in forensic practice, enabling assessment of analytical feasibility across heterogeneous postmortem cardiac tissue. Samples were analyzed using the MxP® Quant 500 kit following the standard protocol and using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry and flow injection analysis methods, measuring and quantifying a total of 630 endogenous metabolites across diverse classes.

Results

Out of the 630 metabolites, 463 (74%) were within the quantifiable range. Lipid-related metabolites were notably well represented, with sphingomyelins (100% retained), phosphatidylcholines (93% retained), triacylglycerols (82% retained), and fatty acids (83% retained) showing the highest retention. Other metabolite classes such as acylcarnitines (45% retained) demonstrated greater variability, with some measurements falling below the limit of detection (e.g., 47% of acylcarnitines below this limit) or exceeding the upper limit of quantification (e.g., 35% of amino acids above this limit). Univariate analyses showed nominal group differences among specific metabolite subclasses (unadjusted p < 0.05). However, no metabolites remained statistically significant after correcting for false discovery rate. Multivariate analysis using PERMANOVA or PCA showed no strong global separation.

Conclusion

The Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit demonstrated technical feasibility for postmortem cardiac tissue analysis, enabling quantification of a broad range of metabolites, particularly lipids. While variability was observed across certain metabolite classes, the approach provides a promising basis for standardized metabolomic investigations in forensic and cardiovascular research.

Introduction

Postmortem cardiac tissue represents a valuable but analytically challenging matrix for metabolomics research. Autopsy samples may provide a unique snapshot of metabolic alterations prior to and at the time of death, but their analysis and interpretation are complicated by the postmortem degradation, in combination with incomplete information regarding the circumstances and timing of death. Although postmortem interval (PMI) is frequently used as a temporal marker, it is only a crude proxy for degradation, as factors such as temperature, humidity and environmental exposure may substantially affect tissue degradation [1,2]. Despite these challenges, postmortem metabolomic profiling is increasingly utilized in forensic and biomedical research, particularly for identifying disease-related biochemical alterations and biomarkers [3–5]. Given the potential value of postmortem cardiac tissue, standardized targeted metabolomics platforms should be evaluated in this matrix to determine whether they can generate quantifiable and biologically interpretable data under forensic autopsy conditions.

Metabolomics, the holistic analysis of small molecules involved in cellular metabolism, has emerged as a promising approach for studying biochemical mechanisms in postmortem material [3,5–7]. Metabolomics approaches are divided into targeted and untargeted strategies. Untargeted metabolomics aims to broadly profile metabolites without prior selection, enabling the discovery of novel biomarkers and unexpected metabolic alterations [7]. However, these workflows are technically demanding, produce highly complex datasets with many unidentified features, and are particularly challenging to standardize due to variability in sample preparation, analytical platforms, and data processing pipelines [8]. Targeted metabolomics, in contrast, quantifies a predefined set of metabolites with high reproducibility, allowing the validation of known biomarkers [7,9]. Nevertheless, like untargeted approaches, targeted methods also require substantial setup in the laboratory. Developing a robust targeted assay involves time-consuming optimization and access to authentic standards to ensure accurate metabolite identification and quantification [9]. This need for specialized resources can limit accessibility and standardization across laboratories.

Commercial kits provide a practical solution to streamline and standardize targeted metabolomics workflows. The Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit (Biocrates Life Sciences, Innsbruck, Austria) is widely used to quantify metabolites and lipids across key metabolic pathways using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and flow injection analysis–tandem mass spectrometry (FIA-MS/MS). Although originally validated for human plasma, serum, and urine, this kit has also been applied to matrices such as feces, breast milk, liver, bone marrow, and postmortem brain tissue [10–13]. Its standardized protocol facilitates implementation across laboratories and improves comparability of results, but whether it is applicable to postmortem human cardiac tissue has not been established.

A biologically relevant setting in which to explore this feasibility is sudden cardiac death (SCD), for which autopsy in a hospital or forensic setting is strongly recommended [14–18]. Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is the leading cause of SCD, which typically occurs as a consequence of severe atherosclerotic stenosis or acute coronary occlusion with thrombosis [15,19,20]. Determining the cause of death in SCD remains challenging, particularly when macroscopic and microscopic findings are inconclusive or absent. In cases lacking an occlusive thrombus or significant coronary stenosis, establishing a diagnosis of ischemia-induced arrhythmia is often impossible. In this context, metabolomic profiling of postmortem cardiac tissue may provide additional biochemical insights into the myocardial metabolism in fatal cardiac conditions.

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a well-known risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease, especially IHD. Although less well characterized, T2D may also lead to diabetic cardiomyopathy, which can in turn lead to fatal cardiac dysfunction even in the absence of significant coronary artery disease [21–26]. As the global prevalence of T2D continues to rise, its contribution to cardiac deaths is becoming increasingly important in forensic investigations [27,28].

Both IHD and T2D are known to induce significant metabolic alterations in the myocardium. IHD is primarily characterized by ischemia-induced shifts in energy metabolism, including impaired oxidative phosphorylation and increased reliance on glycolysis [7,29]. In contrast, T2D is typically characterized by chronic metabolic remodeling, impaired glucose uptake, and increased fatty acid oxidation [22,30,31]. These alterations ultimately contribute to mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, and energy inflexibility, which can be detected through metabolomic profiling [4].

In this proof-of-concept study, we evaluated the feasibility of using the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit to analyze human cardiac tissue obtained during routine forensic autopsies. To assess whether biologically relevant variation could be captured within the kit’s quantifiable range under realistic forensic conditions, we included cases of IHD, T2D, and controls without cardiac pathology, representing a spectrum of myocardial conditions commonly encountered in forensic practice. Our primary objective was to determine whether this targeted metabolomic approach can generate quantifiable metabolomic data from postmortem cardiac tissue under common forensic conditions, while group-based biological interpretations were considered exploratory.

Materials and methods

Study population

Forensic autopsies were performed in accordance with Danish legislation and followed international guidelines [15]. During autopsy, biopsies are routinely collected from most organs, which can later be used for ancillary purposes, such as toxicological, microscopic, or genetic analyses.

We included 40 male decedents aged 40–50 years, who underwent forensic autopsy at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, between 2018 and 2023. This age interval was chosen as, in Denmark, cardiac tissue is not routinely collected for storage at −70°C for individuals aged > 50 years, but we still wanted to include individuals with overt cardiovascular disease. To minimize sex-related metabolic variability and ensure a more homogeneous sample set, only male cases were included.

All forensic autopsies within the target age range were screened. Data from police reports, autopsy records, histological examinations, toxicological screenings (including postmortem HbA1c analysis), and general practitioner records were reviewed to determine case eligibility. Diagnoses of T2D were confirmed based on at least one of the following criteria: HbA1c > 48 mmol/mol [32], a history of being prescribed glucose-lowering agents (ATC-A10), or a medical history of T2D based on information from the decedent’s general practitioner. IHD was defined by the presence of ≥75% coronary artery stenosis observed macroscopically during the autopsy or histopathological findings consistent with chronic or acute myocardial ischemia [33]. Control individuals were selected from cases of sudden death due to accidental trauma, including traffic accidents (involving pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, or car drivers) or falls from height, where death was considered instant and not disease-related.

Exclusion criteria were evidence of putrefaction (e.g., greenish discoloration of the abdominal skin), cardiac trauma, a history of substance abuse, and body mass index (BMI) > 35 or < 20. To minimize the potential confounding effects of a prolonged PMI, cases with the shortest PMI (ranging from 3 to 9 days) were selected and categorized into three groups: decedents with confirmed T2D whose causes of death included both IHD and accidental trauma (n = 10); decedents with confirmed acute or chronic IHD without evidence of T2D (n = 20); and a control group consisting of decedents without T2D or IHD who died from accidental trauma (n = 10). It should be noted that the recorded PMI is subject to uncertainty depending on the circumstances surrounding the death, and for this reason cases with visible signs of putrefaction were excluded as a pragmatic measure to limit bias from advanced postmortem degradation.

Cases were identified and data were accessed for research purposes in June–July 2024. During case identification, one author had access to identifiable information within a secure forensic database solely to determine eligibility. Following case selection, tissue samples and associated data were anonymized by authorized personnel at the Department of Forensic Medicine prior to release for analysis. The identification key was deleted before data analysis. The authors did not have access to directly identifiable information during or after data analysis. The baseline characteristics available for analysis did not permit identification of individual decedents. This included age, PMI, BMI, heart weight, left ventricular wall thickness, and coronary artery stenosis measured at autopsy. The stenosis of the arteries (left anterior descending artery, LAD, right coronary artery, RCA, and left circumflex artery, Cx) were categorized into mild (0–25%), moderate (26–50%), moderately severe (51–75%) or severe (>75%).

Tissue sampling

Cardiac tissue samples were collected during routine forensic autopsy from the anterior wall of the left ventricle at the mid-ventricular level (2×1 cm transverse sample). The samples were placed in cryotubes and stored at −70°C immediately after the autopsy and later thawed and homogenized at a 1:3 ratio with isopropanol. This single extraction with 100% isopropanol was selected based on the procedure reported by Andresen et al. [10] who evaluated different extraction media and tissue-to-solvent ratios for human tissue analyzed with the same kit. The tissue was homogenized using a gentleMACS Octo Dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) with a 50–second program applying up to 4000 rpm. The instrumentation is routinely used for postmortem muscle and brain tissue homogenization prior to quantitative analysis in forensic case work with the same tissue-to-solvent ratio, although different extraction media optimized for a different group of analytes [10,34,35]. Approximately 500 mg of tissue was processed per case, and homogenate supernatants were stored at −70°C until further analysis.

Chemicals and reagents

All reagents and solvents were of LC-MS grade unless otherwise specified. MilliQ® water was obtained from a local MilliQ water system. Ethanol, methanol, acetonitrile, isopropanol, and ammonium acetate were purchased from Merck Life Science (Darmstadt, Germany). Formic acid was sourced from Honeywell Fluka™ (Charlotte, NC, USA), phenyl isothiocyanate (PITC) from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), and pyridine (purity > 99%) from Thermo Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA).

Targeted metabolomics

For targeted metabolomics with the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit, samples were prepared and analyzed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Ten microliters of the tissue extract was used for the sample preparation. The kits were analyzed on a Waters TQ-XS coupled with a Waters I-class UPLC (Waters Corp., Milford, MA, USA), with two liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and two flow-injection analysis (FIA)-MS/MS methods per sample [36]. Further information on sample preparation and instrumentation is available in the S1 File, Materials and methods, Supplementary Information.

Data acquisition and processing

Data acquisition was performed using MassLynx version 4.2 (Waters Corporation, Massachusetts, USA). Raw data were then processed with Biocrates’ cloud-based WebIDQ software for quantification, quality control assessment, and batch normalization in accordance with the kit specifications. All values were normalized to the median value of a quality control sample analyzed in four replicates throughout the run. For downstream analysis, missing values were imputed based on the limit of detection (LOD). Specifically, concentrations reported as below the LOD were imputed as LOD/2. When no valid LOD value was available for a given metabolite, the value was imputed as half of the lowest observed concentration for that metabolite across all samples. After preprocessing, the data were log2-transformed and exported as an  .xlsx file. The dataset was extracted with and without a filter for metabolites quantified in at least 75% of samples in at least one study group to evaluate which metabolites were retained. The results presented are thus based on metabolites that were measured in at least 75% of samples in one study group. Metabolite groups were adapted from Biocrates.

Statistical analysis

As only 54% of metabolites met the assumption of normality, as assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test, group comparisons of metabolites and continuous baseline variables were conducted using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. Categorical baseline variables were compared using Fisher’s exact or chi-square tests, as appropriate. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. To correct for multiple testing, p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate (FDR), applied across all retained metabolites. Effect sizes were estimated using epsilon squared (ε²), with ε² values > 0.14 considered as large effect sizes. For metabolites showing significant differences using the Kruskal–Wallis test, post hoc pairwise comparisons were performed using Dunn’s test to identify which specific groups differed. To assess differences in overall metabolite profiles between groups, a permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) was performed using Bray–Curtis dissimilarities. The test was conducted using 999 permutations. Homogeneity of multivariate dispersion was assessed using permutation tests (PERMDISP), as differences in dispersion may influence PERMANOVA results.

To investigate the influence of PMI on metabolite profiles, metabolite concentrations were standardized as z-scores across samples to account for differences in concentration scales. Z-scores were then averaged within metabolite classes to generate class-level scores for each sample. Associations between metabolite class scores and PMI were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation, with FDR adjusted p-values as described above.

Data visualization included boxplots to illustrate group-wise differences in metabolite concentrations, volcano plots to represent both statistical significance (–log10 p-value) and effect size (log2 fold change), and multivariate methods to explore global patterns in the data. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used as an unsupervised method for assessing natural variance and clustering across groups using autoscaled metabolite concentrations.

All statistical analyses were performed in R (version 4.3.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). The full R script and anonymized metabolomics datasets used for the analysis are available on GitHub (https://github.com/opdjmw/MxP-Quant-500-postmortem-analysis).

Ethics statement

This study was a proof-of-concept and methodology study using postmortem cardiac tissue collected during routine forensic autopsies. The study was reviewed and approved by the Danish Research Ethics Committee (De Videnskabsetiske Komitéer, Region Hovedstaden; journal no. H-23019754). All tissue samples and associated data were fully anonymized prior to analysis.

Results

Study population

Five characteristics of the study population were reported: age, body mass index (BMI), PMI, heart weight, and coronary artery stenosis, as shown in Table 1. The mean age was comparable across groups (IHD 45 years, controls 45.2 years, and T2D 47 years, p = 0.130). PMI was slightly longer in controls (mean 5.8 days) than in the disease groups (IHD 4.2 days and T2D 4.4 days), however overall similar between the groups (p = 0.109). BMI was similar across groups, ranging from 29.6 to 30.7 kg/m² (p = 0.863). Although not significant, heart weight tended to be highest in the T2D group (506 g), followed by the IHD group (464 g) and the controls (424 g) (p = 0.075). Left ventricular wall thickness did not differ substantially among the groups (IHD 12.5 mm, T2D 12.1 mm, and controls 12.1 mm, p = 0.661).

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the study population.

Variable Controls (n = 10) T2D (n = 10) IHD (n = 20) p-value
Age 45.2 ± 3 47 ± 2 45 ± 2.5 0.130
PMI 5.8 ± 2.2 4.4 ± 1.3 4.2 ± 1.4 0.109
BMI 29.7 ± 3.8 30.7 ± 4.2 29.6 ± 4.8 0.863
Heart weight [g] 423.7 ± 62.6 506.3 ± 101 464.2 ± 63.4 0.075
LV wall thickness [mm] 12.1 ± 1.4 12.1 ± 3.6 12.5 ± 2.6 0.661
LAD stenosis category, n Mild: 9; Moderate: 1 Mild: 3; Moderate: 2; Moderately severe: 4; Severe: 1 Mild: 2; Moderate: 1; Moderately severe: 10; Severe: 7 <0.001
RCA stenosis category Mild: 10 Mild: 5;Moderate: 2; Moderately severe: 1; Severe: 2 Mild: 8;Moderate: 4; Moderately severe: 5;Severe: 3 0.081
Cx stenosis category Mild: 10 Mild: 6;Moderate: 1; Moderately severe: 2; Severe: 1 Mild: 12;Moderate: 3; Moderately severe: 5 0.196

Variables are given as mean ± SD. PMI: postmortem interval, BMI: body mass index, LV, left ventricular, LAD, left anterior descending artery, RCA, right coronary artery, Cx, left circumflex artery

Most IHD cases displayed at least moderate stenosis of the LAD, the majority of controls had mild stenosis, while T2D cases showed an intermediate pattern, with a distribution spanning mild to severe stenosis (p < 0.001). For RCA and Cx, all controls had mild stenosis, while IHD and T2D groups showed broader distributions, although these differences were less pronounced and not statistically significant (RCA p = 0.081; Cx p = 0.196).

Evaluation of metabolite detection in postmortem cardiac tissue

For downstream analyses, we retained only those metabolites that were detected in at least 75% of the samples within at least one study group. Out of the 630 metabolites measured, 463 (74%) met this criterion, as detailed in Table 2 and a more detailed analytical summary of all 630 metabolites is presented in S1 Table. The results show that metabolite retention varies across metabolite classes. For example, alkaloids, cresols, sphingomyelins, vitamins and cofactors, and nucleobases-related showed complete retention, while dihydroceramides (12.5%) and cholesterol esters (13.6%) had the lowest detection rates. Fig 1 illustrates the concentration ranges by metabolite class. Some metabolites showed large variations. For example, methionine sulfoxide ranged from <LOD to> ULOQ, taurine measurements were > ULOQ in all samples, and CE 17:0 was < LOD in all samples. Acylcarnitines, dihydroceramides, and hormones generally displayed low concentrations, with a high proportion of values below the LOD. In contrast, amino acids and fatty acids showed signal saturation, with > 30% of values above the ULOQ. Despite these extremes, key metabolites were retained in classes such as amino acids (80%), amino acid-related (83.3%), and fatty acids (83.3%). S2 Table presents the concentration ranges of the retained metabolites as a reference.

Table 2. Detected metabolite classes.

Class <LOD, % >ULOQ, % Retained, %
Acylcarnitines (n = 40) 46.9 2.6 45.0
Amino acids (n = 20) 0.0 34.5 80.0
Amino acid-related (n = 30) 13.4 0.2 83.3
Bile acids (n = 14) 14.1 0.0 85.7
Biogenic amines (n = 9) 36.7 0.0 66.7
Ceramides (n = 28) 84.7 0.2 96.4
Cholesterol esters (n = 22) 59.5 0.1 13.6
Diacylglycerols (n = 44) 72.5 0.0 40.9
Dihydroceramides (n = 8) 9.8 37.5 12.5
Fatty acids (n = 12) 45.3 1.9 83.3
Glycosylceramides (n = 35) 6.3 1.7 51.4
Phosphatidylcholines (n = 88) 0.0 0.0 93.2
Sphingomyelins (n = 14) 21.0 0.1 100
Triacylglycerols (n = 242) 46.9 2.6 82.2

Alkaloids (n = 1), biogenic amines (n = 6), carboxylic acids (n = 4), cholesterol esters (n = 3), dihydroceramides (n = 1), hormones (n = 2), indoles and derivatives (n = 3), nucleobases-related (n = 1), and vitamins and cofactors (n = 1) were not included due to having fewer than eight detected metabolites per class and can be found in S2 Table. LOD: limit of detection, ULOQ: upper limit of quantification

Fig 1. Distribution of log10 concentration (µM) by metabolite class for classes with eight or more metabolites.

Fig 1

Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the median as a horizontal line; whiskers indicate 1.5 × IQR. Individual data points are overlaid.

Postmortem interval

Spearman correlation analysis of metabolite class scores and PMI showed moderate positive correlations for several classes, including biogenic amines (ρ = 0.43, p = 0.006), fatty acids (ρ = 0.43, p = 0.006), glycosylceramides (ρ = 0.42, p = 0.008), and amino acid-related metabolites (ρ = 0.39, p = 0.013). However, none of these associations remained statistically significant after FDR correction. The remaining metabolite classes showed weak or no correlations with PMI (S3 Table).

Unsupervised analysis

PCA was performed to explore the overall variance in metabolite profiles. PC1 accounted for 33% of the variance, while PC2 and PC3 each accounted for 12%. Eigenvalues and variance for PC1–10 are listed in S4 Table. In the score plot (Fig 2), partial separation of the groups was observed, particularly along PC1, although substantial overlap remained across all groups. The T2D group displayed a greater variance than the IHD and control groups, suggesting higher within-group heterogeneity. When samples were annotated according to PMI ranges of <4 days, 4–7 days, and ≥7 days, no distinct clustering was observed (S1 Fig). Overall, PCA did not provide clear separation by either groups or PMI, suggesting that the overall metabolic variation is not strongly driven by these factors. The metabolites contributing most strongly to PC1–3 included triacylglycerols (TG 18:1_34:2 on PC1), fatty acids (FA 20:3 on PC2), and phosphatidylcholines (PC 40:6 on PC3).

Fig 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) showing unsupervised clustering of individuals based on metabolite profiles.

Fig 2

Each point represents one individual, color-coded by group: T2D (○, red), IHD (Δ, blue), and Control (□, green). PC1 and PC3 are visualized, revealing partial overlaps and marginal clustering between groups.

Inter-class variance in metabolite profiles

After performing the Kruskal–Wallis test on the 463 retained metabolites, 19 metabolites showed nominally significant differences (unadjusted p < 0.05) between the groups, as seen in Table 3. However, no metabolites remained statistically significant after FDR correction. The adjusted p-values were high (above 1, reported as p = 1.00), reflecting the distribution of p-values across all tested metabolites and the large number of comparisons. Despite the lack of statistical significance, several metabolites showed a relatively large effect sizes, such as acylcarnitines C3 (ε² = 0.24), C2 (ε² = 0.17), and phosphatidylcholine PC O-34:3 (ε² = 0.21). If we look at the analytical performance of the metabolites with unadjusted p < 0.05 in the Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 3), the triglycerides and PC O-30:1 had at least one failed QC (S1 Table), either for the coefficient of variation or accuracy, measured at three levels with at least three QCs at each level. At least one failed QC for one parameter is indicated with an asterisk in Table 3. The remaining ten metabolites passed all set parameters, with the medium-level QC coefficient of variation below 12% (N = 4).

Table 3. Kruskal–Wallis test results (for metabolites with p < 0.05).

Metabolite (abbreviation, metabolite class) ϵ2 p-value adjusted p-value
C3, Acylcarnitine 0.255 0.003 1.00
PC O-34:3, Phosphatidylcholine 0.213 0.007 1.00
C2, Acylcarnitine 0.172 0.015 1.00
GABA, Biogenic amine 0.161 0.019 1.00
TG 22:6_32:1, Triacylglycerol* 0.154 0.021 1.00
PC O-36:4, Phosphatidylcholine 0.152 0.022 1.00
TG 20:5_34:1, Triacylglycerol* 0.140 0.028 1.00
C0, Acylcarnitine 0.134 0.031 1.00
TG 17:2_36:2, Triacylglycerol* 0.129 0.034 1.00
TG 18:1_28:1, Triacylglycerol* 0.128 0.034 1.00
SM 34:2, Sphingomyelin 0.128 0.035 1.00
TG 18:1_30:2, Triacylglycerol* 0.125 0.036 1.00
Harg, Amino acid-related 0.124 0.037 1.00
TG 18:1_34:4, Triacylglycerol* 0.123 0.038 1.00
PC O-30:1, Phosphatidylcholine* 0.123 0.038 1.00
TG 18:2_30:1, Triacylglycerol* 0.117 0.043 1.00
C18:2, Acylcarnitine 0.114 0.044 1.00
TG 16:1_36:2, Triacylglycerol* 0.114 0.044 1.00
PC 32:3, Phosphatidylcholine 0.111 0.047 1.00
TG 16:0_34:4, Triacylglycerol* 0.108 0.050 1.00

*: At least one QC fail for either coefficient of variation or accuracy, measured at three levels with at least three QCs at each level (see S1 Table)

PERMANOVA showed no significant differences in overall metabolite composition between groups (R² = 0.051, F = 1.00, p = 0.429), suggesting that only a small proportion of the overall variance in the dataset was attributable to inter-group variation. However, testing for homogeneity of dispersion revealed significant differences in within-group variability (PERMDISP, p = 0.016), indicating that dispersion differed between groups. This suggests that the lack of group separation observed may reflect differences in within-group heterogeneity rather than distinct group-specific metabolic profiles.

Boxplots and volcano plots, shown in Fig 3, were used to visualize groupwise metabolite differences based on effect size (log2 fold change) and statistical significance (−log10 p-value). The the box plots (Fig 3A) show metabolites with nominally significant differences across groups in the Kruskal–Wallis test using unadjusted p-values (p < 0.05), while the volcano plots (Fig 3B) provide an overview of all retained metabolites. In the comparison between IHD cases and controls, acylcarnitine C3 was upregulated in the IHD cases, while 3-indoleacetic acid (3-IAA) and homoarginine (HArg) were downregulated. For the T2D vs. control comparison, multiple triacylglycerols (e.g., TG 22:6_32:1, TG 14:0_36:1) and phosphatidylcholines (e.g., PC 34:1, PC O-36:3) showed marked downregulation in T2D. The T2D vs. IHD comparison revealed a similar trend of downregulation in short-chain acylcarnitines (e.g., C2, C3, C4) and triacylglycerols in the T2D cases, while a single bile acid (CA) was upregulated compared with the level in IHD. The full results of the post hoc Dunn’s tests are provided in S5 Table, and corresponding fold changes and unadjusted p-values for all metabolites included in the volcano plots are detailed in S6 Table.

Fig 3. A) Boxplots of 19 metabolites with nominally significant differences between groups (Control, IHD, T2D), identified by Kruskal–Wallis test followed by post hoc Dunn’s test (FDR-corrected p < 0.05; see S5 Table for details). Metabolite concentrations are log2-transformed and shown in µM. Each box represents the interquartile range (IQR), with the median as a horizontal line; whiskers indicate 1.5 × IQR. Individual data points are overlaid. B) Volcano plots showing pairwise comparisons of retained metabolites in cardiac tissue: IHD vs. Control, T2D vs. Control, and T2D vs. IHD. The x-axis shows log2 fold change, and the y-axis shows –log₁₀ p-value. Metabolites surpassing significance thresholds (p < 0.05 and log2 fold change > 1) are highlighted in red (upregulated) or blue (downregulated).

Fig 3

Discussion

Rationale for the study design

T2D and IHD are common underlying conditions in SCD [17,24,26,37,38]. These groups were chosen to represent pathophysiologically distinct yet clinically relevant forms of cardiac disease [4,22,29,39], making them suitable for assessing the feasibility of applying targeted metabolomics to postmortem cardiac tissue.

Cases were broadly matched in terms of age, sex, BMI, and PMI. Although the individuals included in the study were generally younger and less representative of the broader population, either healthy or affected by IHD and T2D, they reflect the SCD population typically encountered in a forensic setting in Denmark [17]. The forensic autopsy setting enabled access to well-characterized cases with confirmed cardiac pathology and phenotypic specificity based on both macroscopic and histopathological assessment. This provided a suitable setting for testing methodological feasibility in a context where traditional autopsy findings may be inconclusive. Moreover, the ability to analyze cardiac tissue, normally inaccessible in living patients, enhances the translational relevance of the study.

Feasibility of the commercial targeted metabolomics kit in postmortem cardiac tissue

Using the selected and standardized analytical setup, 463 out of the 630 evaluated metabolites (74%) were retained for downstream analysis, supporting the technical feasibility of using the MxP® Quant 500 kit on autopsy-derived cardiac tissue. This is a notable finding given the known challenges associated with postmortem samples, including variable PMI and potential tissue degradation. Remarkably, the number of retained metabolites is similar to what has been reported for fresh surgical liver tissue originating from living donors and extracted with a similar protocol and kit [10]. This demonstrates the analytical feasibility of the method under postmortem conditions.

Using the vendor-recommended extraction and a fixed sample input volume of 10 μL of homogenized tissue extract (see S1 File, Materials and Methods), we observed that this input amount may have been sub-optimal for certain metabolite classes. Several classes, such as acylcarnitines and biogenic amines, showed a high proportion of values below the LOD, suggesting that these analytes may have required a greater sample volume to increase the analyte concentration. Conversely, amino acids and fatty acids displayed saturation effects, with > 30% of values exceeding the ULOQ in some cases, indicating that these abundant analytes may benefit from sample dilution. Most fatty acids in this kit are analyzed by FIA-MS/MS, a platform with different analytical characteristics than LC-MS/MS, including dynamic range. This is reflected in a higher number of high- and low-level QCs with CV error in this group (S1 Table); if this group of analytes is of particular interest, a lipidomics method or, alternatively, the MxP Quant 500 XL kit would be a better choice.

Values below LOD were imputed with LOD/2 during data preprocessing. However, only metabolites that were quantified in at least 75% of one group were retained, meaning that if a metabolite was consistently measured below LOD, it would be excluded for downstream analysis. The imputation enables inclusion of all samples in multivariate and univariate analyses, which generally require complete numerical datasets, and this imputation assigns uniformly low values where we know the true value is between 0 and LOD. However, as several metabolite classes contained a high proportion of values below LOD, LOD/2 imputation may reduce variance and influence downstream statistics, and therefore these classes should be interpreted cautiously.

In addition to demonstrating the technical feasibility of using the MxP® Quant 500 kit, it is important to assess whether the detected metabolites represent biologically meaningful targets in the context of cardiovascular research. We observed good coverage of several lipid classes, including fatty acids, sphingomyelins, phosphatidylcholines, and triacylglycerols, which are associated with T2D and cardiometabolic disease [39] and have previously been analyzed in human cardiac and liver tissue [10,40]. However, as the specific metabolite classes that can be analyzed with the kit are predefined, a notable limitation in this context is the missing information of lactate, a key intermediate in glycolysis and a marker of ischemia, for which measurements were above the ULOQ (S2 Table). A notable group of metabolites not covered by this kit is cardiolipins (important for cardiac mitochondrial function) whose altered metabolism has been associated with cardiac and metabolic disorders [41]. Overall, the retained metabolite coverage included a broad panel relevant to mitochondrial function, lipid metabolism, and membrane biology, supporting the potential utility of this approach for cardiovascular research.

Postmortem-specific alterations must also be considered, as cellular metabolism does not cease immediately at the time of death [8]. Some metabolites, particularly those involved in energy metabolism (e.g., acylcarnitines involved in mitochondrial function), can be depleted after death, while other classes, such as amino acids and phosphatidylcholines, could reflect cellular breakdown following death [7,8]. Ideally, tissue would be collected immediately after death and snap-frozen to halt ongoing cellular metabolism [42]. In the context of forensic autopsies, where the PMI is often both unknown and extended, it is challenging to completely avoid the metabolic alterations associated with delayed sampling [1]. Despite challenges such as autolysis, anoxia, and variations in PMI, many metabolites remained sufficiently stable to allow for biological interpretation. PMI showed weak to moderate correlations with some metabolite classes, however, these associations were not statistically significant after FDR correction. Similarly, PCA did not demonstrate clear clustering by PMI, suggesting that while PMI contributes to variability, it is not a dominant driver of the overall metabolic profile within the studied interval.

Metabolic differences among T2D, IHD, and controls

Exploratory multivariate analysis using PCA revealed overlap in the overall variance in metabolic profiles among the IHD, T2D, and control groups, indicating heterogeneity within study groups. PERMANOVA showed no significant differences in the overall metabolite profiles between groups, while tests of homogeneity of dispersion indicated significant differences in within-group variability. Together, these findings suggest that the observed variation may reflect differences in heterogeneity rather than distinct group-specific metabolic profiles, consistent with the overlap observed in PCA.

Univariate analyses identified 19 metabolites with nominal differences between the study groups (unadjusted p < 0.05), as listed in Table 3, however none remained statistically significant after FDR correction. Several metabolites showed moderate-to-large effect sizes (ε² > 0.14), suggesting potential differences that warrant further investigation. For example, acylcarnitine C3 showed higher levels in IHD cases compared with controls and T2D cases. This is consistent with previous reports of elevated acylcarnitine levels in patients with chronic ischemic heart failure have [43]. More broadly, individual metabolites within lipid classes such as phosphatidylcholines, ceramides and triacylglycerols, showed differences across the study groups, however these findings should be interpreted with caution given the lack of statistical significance after FDR correction.

Generally, any suggested biological variance fell on correcting for FDR. Only limited pre-filtering (metabolites must be quantified in at least 75% in at least one study group) was applied before the data analysis. It could be justifiable to include additional filters to reduce number of retained metabolites, such as dispersion ratio filters (removing metabolites with low biological-to-technical variance), or requiring metabolites to be quantified in multiple samples in all study groups. Lowering the number of tested variables would reduce the impact of multiple testing correction. Since this is a proof-of-concept study, it was decided to retain many metabolites also those that might have pronounced intergroup variance in analytical performance.

Limitations

The composition of our study groups reflects pragmatic compromises. For example, to ensure adequate sample sizes, the IHD group included both chronic and acute (thrombosis) ischemia, and the T2D group had a mixture of causes of death, namely, both IHD and accidental trauma (similar to the control group). More refined case definitions were constrained by the available sample material. We limited our cohort to male individuals aged 40–50 years. As a result, our cohort may not capture the full extent of advanced cardiac pathology, nor allow assessment of sex-specific metabolic differences. In future work, clearer patient stratification, such as separating acute versus chronic ischemia or including better-defined T2D cases, as well as the inclusion of female and older individuals, could enhance the biological insights obtained. Furthermore, comorbidities such as undiagnosed T2D cannot be completely ruled out, particularly in IHD cases where HbA1c is not routinely measured unless diabetes is suspected. Finally, although PMI was restricted to a relatively narrow range (3–9 days), metabolite-specific degradation cannot be ruled out and may likely contribute to the observed variability, although its overall impact on the metabolic patterns appeared limited within the studied interval.

Conclusions

This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the feasibility of applying a standardized, targeted metabolomics platform to postmortem human cardiac tissue. Among the 630 evaluated metabolites, 463 met the threshold criteria, representing metabolites from all major classes, although with class-dependent analytical performance. However, the absence of clear group clustering and the presence of substantial within-group variability indicate that the current findings should be interpreted as demonstrating analytical feasibility rather than disease-specific metabolic signatures.

Despite the challenges inherent to sampling in a forensic setting, the approach preserved measurable variation, which provides a foundation for future studies to integrate larger cohorts with more refined phenotyping to investigate disease-related metabolic patterns in human cardiac tissue.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Principal component analysis stratified by postmortem interval (PMI).

Principal component analysis (PCA) showing unsupervised clustering of individuals based on metabolite profiles, visualized by PC1 and PC3. Each point represents one individual, with shape indicating diagnostic group: ○T2D, △IHD, and □Control. Colors indicate PMI category: short PMI (<4 days), medium PMI (4–7 days), and long PMI (≥7 days). The plot was used to evaluate whether overall metabolite variation was associated with PMI, with no clear clustering according to PMI category observed.

(TIF)

pone.0356269.s001.tif (63.6KB, tif)
S1 Table. Summary table of analytical parameters for all metabolites, in µM.

Summary of analytical run parameters for all 630 metabolites, including LOD, LLOQ, ULOQ, and QC performance on precision and accuracy.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s002.docx (165.1KB, docx)
S2 Table. Summary table of retained metabolites measured in heart tissue.

Summary of retained metabolites measured in heart tissue, including metabolite class, concentration range, median concentration, and proportions of values below LOD/LLOQ or above ULOQ.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s003.docx (89.4KB, docx)
S3 Table. Spearman correlation between PMI and metabolite class scores.

Spearman correlations between postmortem interval (PMI) and metabolite class scores, including rho (ρ) values, unadjusted- and FDR-adjusted p-values.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s004.docx (19KB, docx)
S4 Table. PCA variance and metabolite contributions.

Eigenvalues, explained and cumulative variance for PC1–10, with the top contributing metabolite for each principal component.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s005.docx (18.9KB, docx)
S5 Table. Dunn’s post hoc test results.

Pairwise Dunn’s post hoc test results for metabolites with significant Kruskal–Wallis tests, including Z-values, unadjusted- and FDR-adjusted p-values.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s006.docx (23.2KB, docx)
S6 Table. Volcano plot metabolite statistics.

Log2 fold changes, p-values, pairwise comparisons, and direction of regulation for metabolites presented in the volcano plots.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s007.docx (24.3KB, docx)
S1 File. Materials and methods, Supplementary Information.

Detailed description of sample preparation, LC-MS/MS and FIA-MS/MS instrumental analysis, system suitability testing, WebIDQ processing, and data export procedures for the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit.

(DOCX)

pone.0356269.s008.docx (21.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the staff at the Proteomics and Metabolomics Core Facility (PRiME) at the Arctic University of Norway for their assistance with the analysis and use of laboratory equipment. The authors also thank Tom Buckle from Scribendi (www.scribendi.com) for editing a draft of this manuscript

Data Availability

Processed metabolomics data and statistical scripts are publicly available via GitHub (https://github.com/opdjmw/MxP-Quant-500-postmortem-analysis). Anonymized individual-level autopsy metadata, including age, body mass index, postmortem interval, heart weight, left ventricular wall thickness, and coronary stenosis, are not publicly available due to legal and ethical restrictions governing the use of forensic autopsy material under Danish law. These metadata represent the complete set of individual-level case information used in the study and are held within a secure institutional database. Requests for data access should be directed to the Data Access Committee at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen: RI-EDMC@sund.ku.dk and will be considered in accordance with applicable legal, ethical, and institutional requirements.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, by internal funding. Marie Mardal received funding support from the Norwegian Research Council [grant number: 312276].

References

  • 1.Magnusson R, Söderberg C, Ward LJ, Arpe J, Kugelberg FC, Elmsjö A, et al. The human metabolome and machine learning improves predictions of the post-mortem interval. Nat Commun. 2026;17(1):1504. doi: 10.1038/s41467-026-69158-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Secco L, Palumbi S, Padalino P, Grosso E, Perilli M, Casonato M, et al. “Omics” and postmortem interval estimation: a systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(3):1034. doi: 10.3390/ijms26031034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cao J, Wei X, Liu M-F, An G-S, Li J, Du Q-X, et al. Forensic identification of sudden cardiac death: a new approach combining metabolomics and machine learning. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2023;415(12):2291–305. doi: 10.1007/s00216-023-04651-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ussher JR, Elmariah S, Gerszten RE, Dyck JR. The emerging role of metabolomics in the diagnosis and prognosis of cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68: 2850–70.doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.09.972 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ward LJ, Kling S, Engvall G, Söderberg C, Kugelberg FC, Green H, et al. Postmortem metabolomics as a high-throughput cause-of-death screening tool for human death investigations. iScience. 2024;27(5):109794. doi: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.109794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Elmsjö A, Vikingsson S, Söderberg C, Kugelberg FC, Green H. Post-mortem metabolomics: a novel approach in clinical biomarker discovery and a potential tool in death investigations. Chem Res Toxicol. 2021;34(6):1496–502. doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00448 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Szeremeta M, Pietrowska K, Niemcunowicz-Janica A, Kretowski A, Ciborowski M. Applications of metabolomics in forensic toxicology and forensic medicine. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(6):3010. doi: 10.3390/ijms22063010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Steuer AE, Brockbals L, Kraemer T. Untargeted metabolomics approaches to improve casework in clinical and forensic toxicology—“Where are we standing and where are we heading?”. WIREs Forensic Science. 2021. doi: 10.1002/wfs2.1449 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Roberts LD, Souza AL, Gerszten RE, Clish CB. Targeted metabolomics. Curr Protoc Mol Biol. 2012. 24. doi: 10.1002/0471142727.mb3002s98 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Andresen C, Boch T, Gegner HM, Mechtel N, Narr A, Birgin E, et al. Comparison of extraction methods for intracellular metabolomics of human tissues. Front Mol Biosci. 2022;9:932261. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.932261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Calvo-Lerma J, Cabrera-Rubio R, Lerin C, González S, Selma-Royo M, Martínez-Costa C, et al. Comprehensive targeted and quantitative profiling of the human milk metabolome: impact of delivery mode, breastfeeding practices, and maternal diet. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2024;68(24):e2400424. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.202400424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Erben V, Poschet G, Schrotz-King P, Brenner H. Evaluation of different stool extraction methods for metabolomics measurements in human faecal samples. BMJ Nutr Prev Health. 2021;4(2):374–84. doi: 10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kalecký K, German DC, Montillo AA, Bottiglieri T. Targeted metabolomic analysis in alzheimer’s disease plasma and brain tissue in non-hispanic whites. J Alzheimers Dis. 2022;86(4):1875–95. doi: 10.3233/JAD-215448 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Basso C, Stone JR. Autopsy in the era of advanced cardiovascular imaging. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(26):2461–8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac220 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Basso C, Aguilera B, Banner J, Cohle S, d’Amati G, de Gouveia RH, et al. Guidelines for autopsy investigation of sudden cardiac death: 2017 update from the Association for European Cardiovascular Pathology. Virchows Arch. 2017;471(6):691–705. doi: 10.1007/s00428-017-2221-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Empana J-P, Lerner I, Valentin E, Folke F, Böttiger B, Gislason G, et al. Incidence of sudden cardiac death in the European union. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022;79(18):1818–27. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lynge TH, Risgaard B, Banner J, Nielsen JL, Jespersen T, Stampe NK, et al. Nationwide burden of sudden cardiac death: a study of 54,028 deaths in Denmark. Heart Rhythm. 2021;18(10):1657–65. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.05.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tfelt-Hansen J, Winkel BG, de Riva M, Zeppenfeld K. The “10 commandments” for the 2022 ESC Guidelines for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(3):176–7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac699 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Michaud K, Basso C, d’Amati G, Giordano C, Kholová I, Preston SD, et al. Diagnosis of myocardial infarction at autopsy: AECVP reappraisal in the light of the current clinical classification. Virchows Arch. 2020;476(2):179–94. doi: 10.1007/s00428-019-02662-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Puolitaival E, Vähätalo J, Holmström L, Haukilahti MAE, Pakanen L, Ukkola OH, et al. Causes and characteristics of unexpected sudden cardiac death in octogenarians/nonagenarians. PLoS One. 2023;18(4):e0284515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0284515 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bojer AS, Sørensen MH, Gæde P, Madsen PL. Myocardial extracellular volume expansion in type 2 diabetes is associated with ischemic heart disease, autonomic neuropathy, and active smoking. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(12):3032–9. doi: 10.2337/dc22-0942 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ho KL, Karwi QG, Connolly D, Pherwani S, Ketema EB, Ussher JR, et al. Metabolic, structural and biochemical changes in diabetes and the development of heart failure. Diabetologia. 2022;65(3):411–23. doi: 10.1007/s00125-021-05637-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lynge TH, Svane J, Pedersen-Bjergaard U, Gislason G, Torp-Pedersen C, Banner J, et al. Sudden cardiac death among persons with diabetes aged 1-49 years: a 10-year nationwide study of 14 294 deaths in Denmark. Eur Heart J. 2020;41(28):2699–706. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehz891 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Marx N, Federici M, Schütt K, Müller-Wieland D, Ajjan RA, Antunes MJ, et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. Eur Heart J. 2023;44(39):4043–140. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad192 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ritchie RH, Abel ED. Basic mechanisms of diabetic heart disease. Circ Res. 2020;126:1501–25. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.315913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Svane J, Pedersen-Bjergaard U, Tfelt-Hansen J. Diabetes and the risk of sudden cardiac death. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2020;22(10):112. doi: 10.1007/s11886-020-01366-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ceriello A, deValk HW, Guerci B, Haak T, Owens D, Canobbio M, et al. The burden of type 2 diabetes in Europe: Current and future aspects of insulin treatment from patient and healthcare spending perspectives. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2020;161:108053. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2020.108053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.McGuire AR, Gill JR. Diabetic cardiomyopathy: a forensic perspective. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2016;6(2):191–7. doi: 10.23907/2016.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hasselbalch RB, Kristensen JH, Strandkjær N, Jørgensen N, Bundgaard H, Malmendal A, et al. Metabolomics of early myocardial ischemia. Metabolomics. 2023;19(4):33. doi: 10.1007/s11306-023-01999-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.An D, Rodrigues B. Role of changes in cardiac metabolism in development of diabetic cardiomyopathy. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2006;291(4):H1489-506. doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00278.2006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Marfella R, Sardu C, Mansueto G, Napoli C, Paolisso G. Evidence for human diabetic cardiomyopathy. Acta Diabetol. 2021;58(8):983–8. doi: 10.1007/s00592-021-01705-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.ElSayed NA, Aleppo G, Aroda VR, Bannuru RR, Brown FM, Bruemmer D, et al. 2. classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of care in diabetes-2023. Diabetes Care. 2023;46(Suppl 1):S19–40. doi: 10.2337/dc23-S002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sheppard MN. Practical cardiovascular pathology: Third edition. Milton: CRC Press; 2022. doi: 10.1201/9780429186530 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nielsen MKK, Nedahl M, Johansen SS, Linnet K. Validation of a fully automated solid-phase extraction and ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method for quantification of 30 pharmaceuticals and metabolites in post-mortem blood and brain samples. Drug Test Anal. 2018;:10.1002/dta.2359. doi: 10.1002/dta.2359 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hansen SL, Nielsen MKK, Linnet K, Rasmussen BS. Simple implementation of muscle tissue into routine workflow of blood analysis in forensic cases - A validated method for quantification of 29 drugs in postmortem blood and muscle samples by UHPLC-MS/MS. Forensic Sci Int. 2021;325:110901. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sommer U, Peck AKT. Application note: standardized targeted metabolomics using the BIOCRATES MxP quant 500 Kit on the ACQUITY UPLC I-class PLUS and Xevo TQ-XS Mass Spectrometer. 2019.
  • 37.Markwerth P, Bajanowski T, Tzimas I, Dettmeyer R. Sudden cardiac death-update. Int J Legal Med. 2021;135(2):483–95. doi: 10.1007/s00414-020-02481-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tseng ZH, Olgin JE, Vittinghoff E, Ursell PC, Kim AS, Sporer K, et al. Prospective countywide surveillance and autopsy characterization of sudden cardiac death: POST SCD study. Circulation. 2018;137(25):2689–700. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.033427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Morze J, Wittenbecher C, Schwingshackl L, Danielewicz A, Rynkiewicz A, Hu FB, et al. Metabolomics and type 2 diabetes risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(4):1013–24. doi: 10.2337/dc21-1705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bowen TJ, Hall AR, Southam AD, Edbali O, Weber RJM, Wilson A, et al. Mass spectrometry-based characterisation of the cardiac microtissue metabolome and lipidome. Metabolomics. 2025;21(3):54. doi: 10.1007/s11306-025-02252-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Bautista JS, Falabella M, Flannery PJ, Hanna MG, Heales SJR, Pope SAS. Advances in methods to analyse cardiolipin and their clinical applications. TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.trac.2022.116808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Andres DA, Young LEA, Veeranki S, Hawkinson TR, Levitan BM, He D, et al. Improved workflow for mass spectrometry-based metabolomics analysis of the heart. J Biol Chem. 2020;295(9):2676–86. doi: 10.1074/jbc.RA119.011081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Belenkov YN, Ageev AA, Kozhevnikova MV, Khabarova NV, Krivova AV, Korobkova EO, et al. Relationship of acylcarnitines to myocardial ischemic remodeling and clinical manifestations in chronic heart failure. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023;10(10):438. doi: 10.3390/jcdd10100438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Xin Sun

4 Apr 2026

Dear Dr. Mardal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 19 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Xin Sun, PhD

Staff Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, by internal funding. Marie Mardal received funding support from the Norwegian Research Council [grant number: 312276].”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data is available only on request from a third party. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing contact details for the third party, such as an email address or a link to where data requests can be made. Please update your statement with the missing information.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

7. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

8. Please include a separate caption for each figure in your manuscript.

9. Please upload a new copy of Figures 1, 2, and 3 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

10. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

11. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Overall Assessment

This study presents a proof-of-concept application of targeted metabolomics to postmortem cardiac tissue, addressing a technically challenging and underexplored area. The proof-of-concept framing is appropriate given the sample size and exploratory nature of the analyses, and the manuscript provides a useful initial evaluation of the performance of a targeted platform in this context. The work has potential relevance for forensic research; however, further clarification and refinement of the analysis and presentation are required.

Major Comments

The manuscript appears to address two distinct objectives: (1) evaluating the technical feasibility of a targeted metabolomics platform in postmortem cardiac tissue, and (2) assessing biological differences between IHD, T2D, and control groups. At present, the balance between these aims is unclear, resulting in a fragmented narrative. The authors should clarify the primary focus of the study and align the narrative and interpretation accordingly, as the current presentation risks overextending biological interpretation from what is inherently a methodological proof-of-concept study.

The implementation of distance-based classification methods (maximum, centroid, Mahalanobis) alongside PLS-DA is unclear. It is not evident whether these approaches were applied within the PLS-DA latent space or used as independent classifiers. In addition, no model validation metrics (e.g., Q², permutation testing, or cross-validation strategy) are reported. This raises concerns regarding potential overfitting and the robustness of the reported classification performance.

The reporting of FDR-adjusted p-values is unclear. The statement that all metabolites have an identical adjusted p-value (p = 0.628) appears implausible, as Benjamini–Hochberg correction typically produces a distribution of adjusted p-values. The authors should clarify how FDR correction was implemented and how these values are being reported.

The PERMANOVA results indicate no significant differences in overall metabolite composition between groups (R² = 0.051, p = 0.429), which is not consistent with the apparent separation suggested by the PLS-DA analysis. This discrepancy should be addressed. Furthermore, it is not stated whether homogeneity of dispersion was assessed, which is a key assumption underlying PERMANOVA.

Table 3 presents metabolites selected on the basis of unadjusted p-values (< 0.05), despite the application of FDR correction indicating that none remain statistically significant. Presenting these features without adjusted p-values risks overstating their relevance. Adjusted p-values should be included alongside raw p-values for transparency of reporting.

The PLS-DA visualisation uses convex hulls to outline group boundaries; however, these are sensitive to extreme observations. The broad hulls observed—particularly for the IHD and T2D groups—suggest that the apparent separation may be influenced by a small number of outliers rather than consistent clustering. This raises concerns about overinterpretation, and the influence of outliers on the model should be assessed or discussed appropriately.

Although the PMI range (3–8 days) is described as relatively narrow, metabolite levels are known to change over this interval in humans. In the context of a feasibility study, PMI should be considered not only as a confounder but also as a variable of interest. Assessing how metabolite detection or quantification rates vary with PMI would strengthen the study and provide insight into the robustness of the assay under postmortem conditions.

Minor Comments

The proof-of-concept nature of the study is stated in the main text but would benefit from being more clearly indicated in the title and/or abstract to appropriately frame the scope and expectations of the work.

There is an inconsistency in the definition of ischemic heart disease (IHD) between the Methods and Results. In the Methods, IHD is defined as ≥75% coronary artery stenosis, whereas in the Results, most IHD cases are described as having ≥50% stenosis. This discrepancy should be clarified and corrected.

In the Discussion, the authors state that the study groups were broadly matched; however, no statistical comparisons of baseline characteristics are presented to support this claim. Appropriate between-group comparisons should be included, or the statement should be revised.

Figure 2 caption appears to retain “tracked changes” from multiple authors, please finalise this caption accordingly.

The corresponding author does not match between the manuscript submission system and the written manuscript version, please clarify accordingly.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript addresses a relevant and timely topic, namely the application of a standardized targeted metabolomics platform to postmortem human cardiac tissue. This represents a meaningful methodological effort, and the authors should be commended for their transparency, particularly in clearly reporting that no metabolites remained significant after correction for multiple testing. However, in its current form, the manuscript presents a mismatch between its stated objectives and what the data are able to support, and therefore requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.

A) The manuscript requires a clear conceptual repositioning. At present, it simultaneously presents itself as a feasibility/methodological study and as a biological comparison between T2D, IHD, and control groups. The data do not support the latter. The absence of FDR-significant metabolites, the non-significant PERMANOVA, and the weak multivariate separation indicate that no robust biological discrimination has been demonstrated. The authors should explicitly reframe the study as a feasibility investigation and revise the title, abstract, and conclusions accordingly. Any biological findings should be clearly downgraded to exploratory observations, and all language suggesting group discrimination should be removed or substantially toned down.

B) The impact of postmortem interval (PMI) is a central issue that is currently underdeveloped and must be addressed more rigorously. The reported PMI range (3–8 days) is biologically relevant and likely to influence metabolite stability. Moreover, the apparent imbalance between groups (with longer PMI in controls) introduces a potential systematic bias. The authors should explicitly investigate PMI as a confounding factor, for example by assessing correlations between PMI and major metabolite classes, visualizing multivariate analyses colored by PMI, or discussing the stability of results across the PMI range. This is particularly important given that existing forensic metabolomics literature has consistently identified PMI as a dominant driver of metabolomic variability, often exceeding disease-related effects and requiring explicit standardization strategies.

C) The heterogeneity of the study groups significantly limits interpretability and should be explicitly acknowledged and incorporated into the discussion. The T2D group includes individuals with heterogeneous causes of death (including traumatic and ischemic conditions), while the IHD group includes both acute and chronic cases. This creates overlapping biological categories and likely explains the substantial overlap observed in PCA and other analyses. The authors should revise the interpretation to reflect that group comparisons are intrinsically limited by this design and should be considered hypothesis-generating only.

D) The choice of analytical platform and its adaptation to postmortem tissue requires a more in-depth and central discussion. The use of a metabolomics kit validated for biofluids introduces well-known issues when applied to solid postmortem tissues, including matrix effects, extraction variability, and dynamic range mismatch. The observed limitations (e.g., saturation of certain metabolite classes and low detectability of others) should be treated as core findings of the feasibility analysis rather than secondary remarks. In this context, it would be useful for the authors to frame their observations within the broader literature, where the choice of biological matrix and its postmortem stability has been shown to critically influence metabolomic outputs and their forensic interpretability.

E) The statistical analysis, while based on appropriate methods, is not sufficiently rigorous in its interpretation. In particular, the use of PLS-DA in a small sample size/high-dimensional setting carries a substantial risk of overfitting. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and avoid any implication of discriminatory performance. If retained, PLS-DA results should be clearly presented as exploratory, and their limitations should be emphasized. Additionally, the interpretation of metabolites showing nominal trends but no significance after FDR correction should be explicitly framed as non-conclusive.

F) The handling of values below the limit of detection should be more critically discussed. The use of imputation strategies such as LOD/2 is common, but in this dataset—where entire metabolite classes are affected—it may influence downstream statistical analyses. The authors should discuss the potential impact of this choice and its implications for the robustness of their findings.

G) The Discussion requires restructuring to better align with the data. The conclusions should focus on what has been convincingly demonstrated, namely the partial analytical feasibility of the approach and the class-dependent performance of the platform. Unsupported biological interpretations should be removed or clearly separated from the main conclusions.

With substantial revision along these lines, the manuscript could make a useful methodological contribution to the field of postmortem metabolomics. In its current form, however, the interpretation exceeds the strength of the data and requires significant adjustment.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Aug 19;21(8):e0356269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0356269.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Jun 2026

Response to Reviewers and Editor

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-26-02704

Title: Targeted metabolomics of postmortem human cardiac tissue using the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their thorough and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all comments, and we believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript. In particular, we have clarified the proof-of-concept nature of the study, strengthened the statistical reporting, and expanded the analysis of postmortem interval (PMI).

For an overview of each comment and its changes, please see below. The the changed lines we refer to can be found in the tracked version.

Reviewer #1

Major Comment 1: Study aims and narrative clarity

Comment: The manuscript appears to address two distinct objectives: (1) evaluating the technical feasibility of a targeted metabolomics platform in postmortem cardiac tissue, and (2) assessing biological differences between IHD, T2D, and control groups. At present, the balance between these aims is unclear, resulting in a fragmented narrative. The authors should clarify the primary focus of the study and align the narrative and interpretation accordingly, as the current presentation risks overextending biological interpretation from what is inherently a methodological proof-of-concept study.

Response:

We agree with the reviewer that the original manuscript did not clearly distinguish between the primary methodological aim and the exploratory biological comparisons. We have therefore revised the manuscript to clearly position the study as a proof-of-concept feasibility investigation of the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit applied to postmortem human cardiac tissue.

Biological comparisons between the study groups are now explicitly framed as exploratory and hypothesis-generating. We have toned down or removed language suggesting clear group discrimination of the metabolites and clarified that observed group differences were nominal findings based on unadjusted p-values and did not remain statistically significant after FDR correction.

These revisions have been made throughout the manuscript, including the Abstract (lines 21–51), Introduction (lines 120–128), Results (lines 313–375), Discussion (lines 530–590), and Conclusions (lines 611–626).

Major Comment 2

Comment: The implementation of distance-based classification methods (maximum, centroid, Mahalanobis) alongside PLS-DA is unclear. It is not evident whether these approaches were applied within the PLS-DA latent space or used as independent classifiers. In addition, no model validation metrics (e.g., Q², permutation testing, or cross-validation strategy) are reported. This raises concerns regarding potential overfitting and the robustness of the reported classification performance.

Response:

Reviewer #1 and #2 both raised concerns regarding the use of the PLS-DA and how it was presented in the original manuscript, and we agree with these concerns. Based on the reviewers’ input we decided to remove the PLS-DA altogether from the manuscript. The PLS-DA did not provide main findings for the study, and the analysis is not well suited for this type of data.

This includes removal of the description of PLS-DA from the Statistical analysis section of the Materials and Methods (lines 242–245), removal of the PLS-DA results ( lines 329–351), and removal of the interpretation from the Discussion (lines 506–512).

Eliminating it reduces the risk of overextending biological interpretation of the results – thus further addressing other comments from reviewer 1 (Major comment #1) and reviewer 2 (Comment A).

Major Comment 3

Comment: The reporting of FDR-adjusted p-values is unclear. The statement that all metabolites have an identical adjusted p-value (p = 0.628) appears implausible, as Benjamini–Hochberg correction typically produces a distribution of adjusted p-values. The authors should clarify how FDR correction was implemented and how these values are being reported.

Response:

We have clarified the implementation of the Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR) correction in the Method section and revised the Result section to improve clarity. FDR correction was applied across all retained metabolites tested in the Kruskal–Wallis analysis, treating them as a single set of simultaneous statistical tests. We now report FDR-adjusted p-values alongside raw p-values in Table 3 and explicitly state that no metabolites remained significant after correction. The wording has been revised to avoid implying that all metabolites had an identical adjusted p-value.

These changes have been made in the Methods section (lines 222-224), Results section (lines 355-360), and Table 3. Further all p-values that were reported as being statistically significant, have now been changed to being reported as nominally significant.

Major Comment 4

Comment: The PERMANOVA results indicate no significant differences in overall metabolite composition between groups (R² = 0.051, p = 0.429), which is not consistent with the apparent separation suggested by the PLS-DA analysis. This discrepancy should be addressed. Furthermore, it is not stated whether homogeneity of dispersion was assessed, which is a key assumption underlying PERMANOVA.

Response:

We acknowledge this discrepancy and appreciate the reviewer’s concern. We have addressed this by explicitly reporting the non-significant PERMANOVA results and by adding a test for homogeneity of multivariate dispersion (PERMDISP). As the PLS-DA analysis has now been removed from the revised manuscript, the previous discrepancy between PERMANOVA and PLS-DA no longer applies. We also believe that adding PERMDISP provides additional interpretational value to the dataset. The Results section now clarifies that the observed variation primarily reflects within-group heterogeneity rather than clear group separation.

These revisions have been incorporated into the Methods section (lines 229-231), Results section (lines 370-373), as well as the lines related to PLS-DA, as described in the response to Major Comment 2.

Major Comment 5

Comment: Table 3 presents metabolites selected on the basis of unadjusted p-values (< 0.05), despite the application of FDR correction indicating that none remain statistically significant. Presenting these features without adjusted p-values risks overstating their relevance. Adjusted p-values should be included alongside raw p-values for transparency of reporting.

Response:

As described in the response to Major Comment 3, we have revised Table 3 to include both unadjusted and FDR-adjusted p-values. We have also revised the Results section to explicitly describe these findings as nominal (unadjusted) and exploratory, as no metabolites remained statistically significant after FDR correction.

These revisions are included in the Results section (lines 384 for Table 3).

Major Comment 6

Comment: The PLS-DA visualization uses convex hulls to outline group boundaries; however, these are sensitive to extreme observations. The broad hulls observed—particularly for the IHD and T2D groups—suggest that the apparent separation may be influenced by a small number of outliers rather than consistent clustering. This raises concerns about overinterpretation, and the influence of outliers on the model should be assessed or discussed appropriately.

Response:

We agree with the reviewer’s concern. The PLS-DA analysis has been removed from the revised manuscript. This removes the risk of overinterpreting apparent group boundaries driven by outliers

These changes are similar to those described in response to Major Comment 2.

Major Comment 7

Comment: Although the PMI range (3–8 days) is described as relatively narrow, metabolite levels are known to change over this interval in humans. In the context of a feasibility study, PMI should be considered not only as a confounder but also as a variable of interest. Assessing how metabolite detection or quantification rates vary with PMI would strengthen the study and provide insight into the robustness of the assay under postmortem conditions.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment and agree that PMI should be considered not only as a potential confounder but also as a variable of interest in a feasibility study. We have therefore expanded the analysis of PMI as follows:

• Performed Spearman correlation analyses between PMI and metabolite class scores based on z-score normalized concentrations.

• Added PCA plots colored by PMI, now included as Fig S1

• Summarized the results in the main text and S2 Table

These analyses showed that PMI contributes to variability in certain metabolite classes. However, the observed associations were generally weak to moderate and did not remain statistically significant after FDR correction. PCA likewise did not reveal clear clustering by PMI. We have also clarified that PMI is an uncertain proxy for postmortem degradation, as degradation is influenced by factors such as temperature, humidity, storage conditions, and environmental exposure. Therefore, visible putrefaction was used as an additional pragmatic exclusion criterion to limit bias from advanced postmortem degradation.

Taken together, these revisions indicate that, within the studied PMI range, the PMI was not a dominant factor influencing the overall metabolite profile.

These revisions have made in the Introduction (lines 84–90), Methods section (lines 155–156, 159-166 and 232–236), Results section (lines 306–311, 318-322), Discussion (lines 490-498).

Minor Comment 1

Comment: The proof-of-concept nature of the study is stated in the main text but would benefit from being more clearly indicated in the title and/or abstract to appropriately frame the scope and expectations of the work.

Response: We have clarified the proof-of-concept nature of the study in the Abstract, including the first sentence describing the study aim. We believe the title already reflects the methodological focus of the study, and therefore we did not deem a title change necessary.

This revision has been made in the Abstract (lines 22–24).

Minor Comment 2

Comment: There is an inconsistency in the definition of ischemic heart disease (IHD) between the Methods and Results. In the Methods, IHD is defined as ≥75% coronary artery stenosis, whereas in the Results, most IHD cases are described as having ≥50% stenosis. This discrepancy should be clarified and corrected.

Response: We have clarified this discrepancy by revising Table 1 and expanding the reporting of coronary artery stenosis. The other coronary arteries have now been added to Table 1, and stenosis degree has been stratified as mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe. We also added the group comparison tests to the Methods section and updated the Results text accordingly.

These revisions have been made in the Methods section (lines 174–177 and 219–221), Results section (lines 257–275), and Table 1.

Minor Comment 3

Comment: In the Discussion, the authors state that the study groups were broadly matched; however, no statistical comparisons of baseline characteristics are presented to support this claim. Appropriate between-group comparisons should be included, or the statement should be revised.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised the manuscript to address this point by including statistical comparisons of baseline characteristics between groups, which are now presented in Table 1 with corresponding p‑values calculated using Kruskal–Walli’s test. Based on these analyses, the groups were comparable with respect to age, BMI, PMI, heart weight, and left ventricular wall thickness, while expected differences were observed for coronary artery stenosis. The text has been updated accordingly to ensure that statements regarding group comparability are supported by the reported statistical analyses.

Minor Comment 4

Comment: Figure 2 caption appears to retain “tracked changes” from multiple authors, please finalise this caption accordingly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for noticing this. The Fig 2 caption has now been finalized, and all figure legends have been reviewed and inserted into the manuscript.

Minor Comment 5:

Comment: The corresponding author does not match between the manuscript submission system and the written manuscript version, please clarify accordingly.

Response: This has now been corrected so that the corresponding author information is consistent between the manuscript and the submission system. We thank the reviewer for pointing this out.

Reviewer #2

Comment A)

The manuscript requires a clear conceptual repositioning. At present, it simultaneously presents itself as a feasibility/methodological study and as a biological comparison between T2D, IHD, and control groups. The data do not support the latter. The absence of FDR-significant metabolites, the non-significant PERMANOVA, and the weak multivariate separation indicate that no robust biological discrimination has been demonstrated. The authors should explicitly reframe the study as a feasibility investigation and revise the title, abstract, and conclusions accordingly. Any biological findings should be clearly downgraded to exploratory observations, and all language suggesting group discrimination should be removed or substantially toned down.

Response: We agree fully with the reviewer’s assessment and have addressed this concern in parallel with Reviewer #1, Major Comment 1, which raised a closely related issue regarding the clarity of the study’s aims and narrative focus. The manuscript has now been comprehensively reframed as a feasibility‑focused, methodological proof‑of‑concept study.

Accordingly, the Abstract, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions have all been revised to clearly reflect this position. Biological comparisons between T2D, IHD, and control groups are now explicitly described as exploratory, and all language suggesting robust group discrimination has been removed or substantially toned down. We also explicitly state that no metabolites remained significant after FDR correction and that PERMANOVA did not show significant group differences. We consider the absence of clear group discrimination to be an important feasibility-related finding, as it highlights the limitations of exploratory biological interpretation in this sample set.

These revisions have been made in the Abstract (lines 21-26, 45-49), Results (lines 319-322, 356-365, 366-373), Discussion (lines 504-538, with removal of lines 539-564), and Conclusions (lines 588–600), as also described in the responses to Reviewer #1, Major Comments 1–5.

Comment B) The impact of postmortem interval (PMI) is a central issue that is currently underdeveloped and must be addressed more rigorously. The reported PMI range (3–8 days) is biologically relevant and likely to influence metabolite stability. Moreover, the apparent imbalance between groups (with longer PMI in controls) introduces a potential systematic bias. The authors should explicitly investigate PMI as a confounding factor, for example by assessing correlations between PMI and major metabolite classes, visualizing multivariate analyses colored by PMI, or discussing the stability of results across the PMI range. This is particularly important given that existing forensic metabolomics literature has consistently identified PMI as a dominant driver of metabolomic variability, often exceeding disease-related effects and requiring explicit standardization strategies.

Response: This was concern was also addressed by reviewer #1 and we agree that it requires more attention. We now made revisions to explicitly evaluate the PMI by performing Spearman correlation analyses between PMI and metabolite class scores based on z‑score–normalized concentrations, and by adding PCA visualizations colored by PMI to assess potential PMI‑related structure in the data. The statistical approach is described in the Methods section, and PMI‑related results are reported in the main text and in S2 Table.

After re‑examining the dataset, the reported PMI range was corrected from 3–8 days to 3–9 days, and all PMI‑related descriptions have been updated ac

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewer.18.5.26.docx

pone.0356269.s011.docx (37.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nguyen Phuoc Long

30 Jun 2026

Dear Dr. Mardal,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 14 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nguyen Phuoc Long, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

Following a further evaluation of your manuscript by new reviewers, we have determined that additional revisions are necessary before it can meet the standards required for publication. Please see the detailed comments below to guide your revisions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my previous major concerns satisfactorily. The manuscript is substantially improved, and the conclusions are now appropriately aligned with the data.

I have only one minor suggestion remaining, that would help the narrative flow: The Introduction could be restructured to better reflect the methodological focus by introducing the feasibility rationale first, with the biological background second serving as motivation rather than the primary narrative.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for your careful and constructive revision. The manuscript has improved substantially and addresses the major concerns raised during the previous review rounds. In particular, the study has been appropriately reframed as a proof-of-concept feasibility investigation, the statistical interpretation has been strengthened, and the conclusions are now more closely aligned with the data presented. I have no further substantive comments and consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: The authors responded satisfactory to all issues raised. No further experiments or evaluations are required to support message of the manuscript.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Matteo Nioi

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Jerzy Adamski

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-02704R1-Comments.docx

pone.0356269.s010.docx (13.9KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2026 Aug 19;21(8):e0356269. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0356269.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


29 Jul 2026

We paste the respond to reviewers here as requested, but it is easier for you to read in the attached word document.

Response to reviewers round 2

We thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive comments and suggestions. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed, point-by-point response below. Quotes in the rebuttal from modified text are highlighted in orange. Unmodified parts of the quotes are black.

Reviewer #1

The authors have addressed my previous major concerns satisfactorily. The manuscript is substantially improved, and the conclusions are now appropriately aligned with the data.

I have only one minor suggestion remaining, that would help the narrative flow: The Introduction could be restructured to better reflect the methodological focus by introducing the feasibility rationale first, with the biological background second serving as motivation rather than the primary narrative.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for the acknowledgement of our correction. We restructured the introduction (lines: 54-115 - not quoted here due to length) with the feasibility rationale first, which better aligns with the narrative flow of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2

Thank you for your careful and constructive revision. The manuscript has improved substantially and addresses the major concerns raised during the previous review rounds. In particular, the study has been appropriately reframed as a proof-of-concept feasibility investigation, the statistical interpretation has been strengthened, and the conclusions are now more closely aligned with the data presented. I have no further substantive comments and consider the manuscript suitable for publication.

Reviewer #3

(No Response)

Reviewer #4

The authors responded satisfactory to all issues raised. No further experiments or evaluations are required to support message of the manuscript.

Reviewer #5 (new)

This manuscript presents a proof-of-concept study evaluating the feasibility of applying the Biocrates Life Sciences MxP® Quant 500 kit to postmortem human cardiac tissue obtained during forensic autopsies. The authors aim to determine whether this standardized targeted metabolomics platform, originally developed for biofluids, can be extended to solid tissue analysis and whether it may support forensic investigations through comparison of metabolomic profiles across different groups of sudden cardiac death

While the topic is relevant and of potential interest to forensic metabolomics, the current manuscript has important methodological limitations that prevent a full assessment of the validity of the conclusions. The following major issues should be addressed:

1. The manuscript aims to evaluate the feasibility and analytical performance of the MxP® Quant 500 kit in postmortem cardiac tissue. However, key analytical validation parameters (e.g., precision, recovery, matrix effects, limits of detection, and QC performance) are not reported, and no clear optimization of tissue-specific extraction or processing is described. In the absence of these data, the analytical suitability of the platform for postmortem cardiac tissue cannot be fully assessed. Consequently, the absence of statistically significant metabolite differences between cause-of-death groups cannot be confidently interpreted as reflecting biological variation alone.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. To strengthening the analytical validation section, we have added a new Supplementary Information table (SI1 Table - shifting the number of the other SI Tables) reporting key analytical performance metrics for all measured metabolites, including many of the variables requested: limits of detection, lower and upper limits of quantitation, QC performance at each concentration level, accuracy assessment, together with precision. These are indeed very important metrics to address analytical suitability, and we should have added it to begin with.

The methodological detail regarding the tissue preparation was not sufficiently clear. We described the sample extraction method in more detail and clarified, with references, why this was selected. The requested optimization of tissue-specific extraction or processing has already, in large, been performed by the referenced paper by Andresen et al. in other postmortem matrices. In the updated method section, we specified what optimization parameters were already covered for postmortem matrices by this paper. An important source of information missing from this Andresen paper is median measured values, and analytical performance - we have this in our manuscript in SI1 and SI2 Tables.

Modifications: “The samples were placed in cryotubes and stored at −70°C immediately after the autopsy and later thawed and homogenized at a 1:3 ratio with isopropanol. This single extraction with 100% isopropanol was selected based on the procedure reported by Andresen et al. [10] who evaluated different extraction media and tissue-to-solvent ratios for human tissue analyzed with the same kit. The tissue was homogenized using a gentleMACS Octo Dissociator (Miltenyi Biotec, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) with a 50–second program applying up to 4000 rpm. The instrumentation is routinely used for postmortem muscle and brain tissue homogenization prior to quantitative analysis in forensic case work with the same tissue-to-solvent ratio, although different extraction media optimized for a different group of analytes [10,34,35]. Approximately 500 mg of tissue was processed per case, and homogenate supernatants were stored at −70°C until further analysis.” (lines: 163-170)

2. It would be helpful to clarify the rationale for selecting a biofluid-optimized kit for the analysis of solid tissue samples. The manuscript could be strengthened by including a more detailed description of the tissue-specific sample preparation and extraction procedures, including the homogenization method, extraction workflow, and normalization strategy, to support reproducibility of the analytical approach. In addition, reporting missing data rates and the number of metabolites excluded due to QC criteria would further improve the evaluation of platform performance in this matrix. If no specific optimization was performed, this should be clearly stated, along with a brief discussion of the potential implications for data interpretation.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion that builds on some of the same points as mentioned in issue #1. The new information we provided in SI1 Table complements the methodological description and provides readers with additional insight into assay performance across the measured metabolite panel. We further included a summary for analytical performance of the metabolites in the results section. There is no commercially available metabolomics kit, to our knowledge, for cardiac tissue, but (as mentioned in the introduction, lines 83-85) this kit has already been used for several alternative matrices. The methodological detail regarding the tissue preparation was not sufficiently clear. We described the sample extraction method in more detail and clarified, with references, why this was selected (se modification under issue #1).

Modifications: We here show a snip of SI1 Table to display the variables presented. The new table was referenced at lines 257, 307, 320, and 377. In addition, we added asterisk to Table 3 for metabolites that had at least one QC failed on either coefficient of variation or accuracy.

(lines 305-310): “If we look at the analytical performance of the metabolites with unadjusted p < 0.05 in the Kruskal-Wallis test (Table 3), the triglycerides and PC O-30:1 had at least one failed QC (S1 Table), either for the coefficient of variation or accuracy, measured at three levels with at least three QCs at each level. At least one failed QC for one parameter is indicated with an asterisk in Table 3. The remaining ten metabolites passed all set parameters, with the medium-level QC coefficient of variation below 12% (N = 4).”

3. It may be worth clarifying whether signal saturation was observed for any compounds, and if so, whether this influenced considerations regarding optimization for cardiac tissue using this kit. Although the study employs a broad targeted metabolomics/lipidomics platform, it should be noted that key mitochondrial phospholipids such as cardiolipins, which are highly abundant and functionally important in cardiac tissue, are not covered by the MxP® Quant 500 kit. This limitation should be acknowledged when interpreting the biological scope of the lipidomic findings, particularly in relation to mitochondrial function and energy metabolism.

Authors Response: To address concerns related to the analytical measurement range, we have included a Supplementary Information SI1 Table reporting the lower and upper limits of quantitation for all measured metabolites, allowing readers to assess whether measurements approached the validated analytical range. This additional information provides greater transparency regarding the quantitative performance of the assay across the metabolite panel. SI2 Table already has some of the information requested: Here the proportion of values <LOD, <LLOQ, and >ULOQ are presented for the metabolites we measure in our postmortem cardiac tissue. This is particularly pronounced for fatty acids, since these are measured with FIA- and not LC-MS/MS - this additional point was added.

Modifications: In the discussion section added a note on cardiolipins (lines 396-398): “A notable group of metabolites not covered by this kit is cardiolipins (important for cardiac mitochondrial function) whose altered metabolism has been associated with cardiac and metabolic disorders [41].” Where 41 is “Bautista JS, Falabella M, Flannery PJ, Hanna MG, Heales SJR, Pope SAS, et al. Advances in methods to analyse cardiolipin and their clinical applications. TrAC - Trends in Analytical Chemistry. Elsevier B.V.; 2022. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2022.116808”

Lines 375-379: “Several classes, such as acylcarnitines and biogenic amines, showed a high proportion of values below the LOD, suggesting that these analytes may have required a greater sample volume to increase the analyte concentration. Conversely, amino acids and fatty acids displayed saturation effects, with > 30% of values exceeding the ULOQ in some cases, indicating that these abundant analytes may benefit from sample dilution. Most fatty acids in this kit are analyzed by FIA-MS/MS, a platform with different analytical characteristics than LC-MS/MS, including dynamic range. This is reflected in a higher number of high- and low-level QCs with CV error in this group (S1 Table); if this group of analytes is of particular interest, a lipidomics method or, alternatively, the MxP Quant 500 XL kit would be a better choice.”

4. Given that the study primarily aims to assess the feasibility and analytical performance of the kit, the interpretation of cohort-based comparisons would benefit from prior or concurrent analytical validation and optimization of the platform in postmortem cardiac tissue. In addition, comparison with an appropriate biofluid control, analyzed using the same platform, could provide useful context regarding how the kit performs in its original application relative to cardiac tissue. Furthermore, a summary table comparing metabolite coverage in this study with that reported in previous studies, if available in the literature, would help contextualize the applicability and analytical scope of the current approach.

Authors Response: The metabolomics kit used came with several biofluid control samples (as presented in SI). Unfortunately, NIST does not produce SRM for metabolites in postmortem cardiac tissue. We used extraction-solvent-matched blank samples, and quality control samples at three concentration levels for each metabolite were analyzed. Additionally, some metabolites were quantified with seven-point calibration curves. These were included in our analytical run. With the additional information we provided in SI1 Table, it is now possible to see analytical performance for all metabolites.

We evaluated the suggestion on the additional table summarizing number of metabolites analyzed in other studies. There are excellent hypothesis-driven studies that only quantify a handful of preselected targets, and exploratory untargeted metabolomics studies using metabolites annotated without cerebral oversight reporting metabolites in the thousands. The extensive discussion needed to contextualize this would be better suited for a review-style paper.

5. The manuscript should clearly distinguish between the analytical feasibility of the metabolomics platform in postmortem cardiac tissue and the biological or forensic interpretation of metabolite differences between cause-of-death groups. At present, these objectives appear to be partially conflated. Instead of presenting the study primarily as an analytical performance evaluation, the authors may consider reframing the scope to more clearly reflect a biologically exploratory or proof-of-concept application.

Authors Response: The manuscript has been evaluated by a total of five reviewers. To address comments from the first round of reviewers, the scope was more clearly focused on the analytical performance as a proof-of-concept study, and we toned down the biologically exploratory aspects. Reshaping this back would conflict with the approved modifications after first round of review.

Modifications: The updated introduction (in response to reviewer #1, lines 54-115) should improve the narrative flow of the manuscript.

Overall assessment

The manuscript presents an interesting attempt to extend a standardized targeted metabolomics platform to postmortem cardiac tissue. However, it currently lacks essential analytical validation and tissue-specific optimization data. Without these, the biological comparisons between cause-of-death groups cannot be reliably interpreted, and conclusions regarding forensic applicability are not sufficiently supported.

Strengthening the analytical validation section and clearly separating methodological feasibility from biological interpretation would substantially improve the scientific robustness and clarity of the manuscript.

Authors Response: We thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. We strengthened the section with analytical validation data/run performance data (notably with SI1 Table), clarified what postmortem tissue-specific optimization was performed in a referenced study, in and more clearly separated the methodological feasibility from biological interpretation in the introduction - to align with the order in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: OEP_Plos1_ResptoRev_2.docx

pone.0356269.s012.docx (77.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Nguyen Phuoc Long

2 Aug 2026

Targeted metabolomics of postmortem human cardiac tissue using the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit

PONE-D-26-02704R2

Dear Dr. Mardal,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nguyen Phuoc Long, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nguyen Phuoc Long

PONE-D-26-02704R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Mardal,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nguyen Phuoc Long

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Principal component analysis stratified by postmortem interval (PMI).

    Principal component analysis (PCA) showing unsupervised clustering of individuals based on metabolite profiles, visualized by PC1 and PC3. Each point represents one individual, with shape indicating diagnostic group: ○T2D, △IHD, and □Control. Colors indicate PMI category: short PMI (<4 days), medium PMI (4–7 days), and long PMI (≥7 days). The plot was used to evaluate whether overall metabolite variation was associated with PMI, with no clear clustering according to PMI category observed.

    (TIF)

    pone.0356269.s001.tif (63.6KB, tif)
    S1 Table. Summary table of analytical parameters for all metabolites, in µM.

    Summary of analytical run parameters for all 630 metabolites, including LOD, LLOQ, ULOQ, and QC performance on precision and accuracy.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s002.docx (165.1KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Summary table of retained metabolites measured in heart tissue.

    Summary of retained metabolites measured in heart tissue, including metabolite class, concentration range, median concentration, and proportions of values below LOD/LLOQ or above ULOQ.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s003.docx (89.4KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Spearman correlation between PMI and metabolite class scores.

    Spearman correlations between postmortem interval (PMI) and metabolite class scores, including rho (ρ) values, unadjusted- and FDR-adjusted p-values.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s004.docx (19KB, docx)
    S4 Table. PCA variance and metabolite contributions.

    Eigenvalues, explained and cumulative variance for PC1–10, with the top contributing metabolite for each principal component.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s005.docx (18.9KB, docx)
    S5 Table. Dunn’s post hoc test results.

    Pairwise Dunn’s post hoc test results for metabolites with significant Kruskal–Wallis tests, including Z-values, unadjusted- and FDR-adjusted p-values.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s006.docx (23.2KB, docx)
    S6 Table. Volcano plot metabolite statistics.

    Log2 fold changes, p-values, pairwise comparisons, and direction of regulation for metabolites presented in the volcano plots.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s007.docx (24.3KB, docx)
    S1 File. Materials and methods, Supplementary Information.

    Detailed description of sample preparation, LC-MS/MS and FIA-MS/MS instrumental analysis, system suitability testing, WebIDQ processing, and data export procedures for the Biocrates MxP® Quant 500 kit.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0356269.s008.docx (21.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to editor and reviewer.18.5.26.docx

    pone.0356269.s011.docx (37.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-02704R1-Comments.docx

    pone.0356269.s010.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: OEP_Plos1_ResptoRev_2.docx

    pone.0356269.s012.docx (77.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Processed metabolomics data and statistical scripts are publicly available via GitHub (https://github.com/opdjmw/MxP-Quant-500-postmortem-analysis). Anonymized individual-level autopsy metadata, including age, body mass index, postmortem interval, heart weight, left ventricular wall thickness, and coronary stenosis, are not publicly available due to legal and ethical restrictions governing the use of forensic autopsy material under Danish law. These metadata represent the complete set of individual-level case information used in the study and are held within a secure institutional database. Requests for data access should be directed to the Data Access Committee at the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen: RI-EDMC@sund.ku.dk and will be considered in accordance with applicable legal, ethical, and institutional requirements.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES