Blog Metabolomics is a frontier of Biomarker Discovery

Metabolomics is a frontier of Biomarker Discovery

1. Introduction: The Strategic Role of Metabolomics in Modern Medicine

Metabolomics is the key to transforming modern medical research by directly reading and interpreting the real physiological state of patients. Genetics reveals predispositions and potential programmed scenarios, but unlike the metabolome, it does not capture the final biological phenotype, which is shaped through complex interactions among genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic processes influenced by lifestyle and environmental exposures [1,2,3].

Within this framework, the identification of Biomarkers of Susceptibility is paramount for the transition from reactive to preventive medicine. These markers quantify the risk of disease development in asymptomatic, healthy individuals, offering a strategic window for intervention [3]. This is especially critical for multifactorial pathologies like breast cancer (BC), where the endogenous metabolome captures the subtle, cumulative effects of modifiable risk factors [3,4].

 

2. The Evolution of Metabolomics Research: From Discovery to MWAS

Metabolomics has fundamentally transformed from small-scale pilot studies to comprehensive, untargeted analyses that identify relationships between metabolic profiles like Metabolome-Wide Association Studies (MWAS) [3,5]. As the field evolves, newer analytical platforms are expanding metabolome coverage beyond traditional library-based approaches, enabling detection of previously uncharacterized metabolites. For example, Panome Bio, is contributing to this shift through Next-Generation Metabolomics® technologies. Upscaling of research in this area refined our understanding of breast cancer risk. In the past, scintific society was focused on non-modifiable genetic drivers like BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations [6]. However, contemporary molecular epidemiology indicates that modifiable environmental and lifestyle factors contribute substantially to overall risk —precisely the factors biobanked biospecimens can help quantify longitudinally [7,8,9].

A classic example of this shift has been showed in the Asian American Migration Study. Across ‘Westernized’ generations of Asian women following migration to Western countries, breast cancer risk increases toward the incidence observed in women born and raised in the West [10]. This highlights the value of the metabolome as an integrated readout of lifestyle and environmental exposures, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of risk than the genetic blueprint alone [11].

 

3. Choosing the Right Biospecimen for Metabolomics

Biological research and precision medicine are evolving rapidly, and metabolomics can be applied across many study designs and analytical workflows. Yet the success of any metabolomics project often comes down to one foundational choice: the biospecimen matrix. The matrix you select determines which metabolites are detectable—and shapes the real-world constraints of collection, processing, storage, and analysis.

Below, we summarize the most widely used biospecimen types in modern metabolomics, highlighting their advantages, limitations, and practical challenges.

 

A. Blood and its derivates

Blood and its derivatives are the most commonly used matrices, enabling broad and comprehensive coverage of the metabolome [3,4,].

  • Pros: Blood is relatively easy to collect and integrates well into SOC workflows. In addition, metabolite stability can be quite high, making blood an ideal matrix for large-scale research and biobanking. Some metabolite classes can remain stable for more than 10 years [4].
  • Cons: It can be difficult to trace a given metabolite signal back to a specific localized tumor or the tissue microenvironment.
  • Difficulties: Metabolite profiles show substantial variability due to external factors and subject-related conditions. Reproducibility is a major challenge because of the strong impact of pre-analytical variables: fasting status, exact collection time, and storage conditions can significantly alter the final metabolic profile. To minimize pre-analytical variation, clear standardization of collection and processing procedures is essential. Anticoagulant selection can introduce technical variability, making cross-study comparisons more challenging [12,13, 14].

 

B. Urine

When it comes to non-invasive sampling, urine is often the first-choice matrix and is widely used for biomarker discovery in urological cancers (e.g., bladder and prostate) as well as other cancers and non-malignant systemic diseases [14,15].

  • Pros: The simplicity and non-invasive procedure of urine collection make it safe for participants and highly cost-effective for large-scale clinical screening and longitudinal studies [1]. Urine is an ideal matrix for capturing short-term environmental exposures, including dietary influences. [16].
  • Cons: Urine is enriched for metabolites—many of which are end products of metabolism—so it primarily reflects excreted compounds and recent exposures rather than active, ongoing cellular processes.
  • Difficulties: A major challenge is the number of potential sources of bias: urine metabolomics profiles are highly sensitive to methodological choices and inter-individual variability, both of which can be difficult to control. This can substantially compromise reproducibility across studies [15,17].

 

C. Solid tissues

Solid tissues can be considered “ground zero” for cancer research as they direct assessment of the tumor microenvironment. Also, tissue can be processed in several different ways – analyzed fresh, preserved fresh-frozen or archived as FFPE blocks [18,19].

  • Pros: Fresh-frozen tissue is considered the “gold standard” for metabolome studies because it perfectly captures the metabolic state in vivo and reduce post-collection degradation. Tissue-based profiling provides precise molecular information and spatial heterogeneity. In particular, mass spectrometry analysis of tissues can provide data on the distribution of metabolites across different cellular phenotypes within the tissue [18,20].
  • Cons: Invasivness of the collection method – tissues can be obtained only during biopsy or surgical removal of the tissues [1].
  • Difficulties: Some metabolites, such as structural lipids, can degrade under the enzymatical activity before the tissue is fixed and fully preserved. In addition, FFPE embedding procedures alter the preservation of some critical polar metabolites due to washout during fixation and dehydration steps, as well as may generate some artificial metabolic profiles that inadequately reflect the living tissue [18,19].

 

D. Others

Metabolomics studies utilize a wide variety of other biospecimen formats for metabolite extraction, including saliva, feces, tears, breath aspirate, nipple aspirate fluid and breast milk, cerebrospinal fluid, bile, ascites, etc [3,20,21].

 

4. The “Reverse Warburg Effect” or Metabolic Reversal

An important step in cancer research is understanding of cancer cells “metabolic reprogramming.” The hallmark of neoplastic cells is the “Warburg effect,” where cancer cells preferentially rely on glycolysis for energy production, regardless of oxygen supply [22]. However, researchers have identified even more aggressive “reverse Warburg effect.” In this case, the tumor can “recruit” nearby healthy stromal cells, forcing them to increase energy production, which the tumor then exploits for its own growth [23].

This metabolic “pulling of the blanket” explains why some tumors are so aggressive and resistant to traditional treatments. By understanding how the tumor metabolically occupies the surrounding stroma, researchers will be able to develop treatments that will block the tumor’s nutrition. This focus on the “metabolic neighborhood” is a key milestone in precision medicine [6,20].

 

5. Conclusions

Metabolomics is key to the next stage in precision medicine development. It provides a holistic view of the tumor life cycle, and it enables new opportunities for non-invasive early cancer diagnostics and target treatments.

Still, we must acknowledge the complexity that remains. For these biomarkers to become routine, we require harmonization of laboratory procedures and assays, as well as validation across diverse populations. We are just “one step away” from moving beyond the era of “one-size-fits-all” medicine to a reality where the metabolome serves as a measurable reflection of our life’s choices and helps to create a personalized treatment strategy.

While your genetic history is fixed, your metabolome is living.

If your metabolism is currently writing the script for your future health, are you ready to learn how to read it? Contact us for more information.

 

Refrences

  1. Karekar, A. K., & Dandekar, S. P. (2021). Cancer metabolomics: A tool of clinical utility for early diagnosis of gynaecological cancers. The Indian journal of medical research, 154(6), 787-796. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_239_19
  2. Bao, L., & Liu, X. (2020). Pan-metabolomics and its applications. In Pan-genomics: Applications, Challenges, and Future Prospects (pp. 371-395). Elsevier.
  3. Wu, H.-C., Lai, Y., Liao, Y., Deyssenroth, M., Miller, G. W., Santella, R. M., & Terry, M.B. (2024). Plasma metabolomics profiles and breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Research, 26(1), 141. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-024-01896-5
  4. Füreder, J., Schernhammer, E. S., Eliassen, A. H., Sieri, S., & Warth, B. (2026). Metabolomics-enabled biomarker discovery in breast cancer research. Trends in endocrinology and metabolism: TEM, 37(1), 68-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tem.2025.04.008
  5. Chadeau-Hyam, M., Ebbels, T. M., Brown, I. J., Chan, Q., Stamler, J., Huang, C. C., Daviglus, M. L., Ueshima, H., Zhao, L., Holmes, E., Nicholson, J. K., Elliott, P., & De Iorio, M. (2010). Metabolic profiling and the metabolome-wide association study: significance level for biomarker identification. Journal of proteome research, 9(9), 4620-4627. https://doi.org/10.1021/pr1003449
  6. Kaur, R., Gupta, S., Kulshrestha, S., Khandelwal, V., Pandey, S., Kumar, A., Sharma, G., Kumar, U., Parashar, D., & Das, K. (2024). Metabolomics-driven biomarker discovery for breast cancer prognosis and diagnosis. Cells (Basel, Switzerland), 14(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells14010005
  7. Brantley, K. D., Zeleznik, O. A., Rosner, B., Tamimi, R. M., Avila-Pacheco, J., Clish, C. B., & Eliassen, A. H. (2022). Plasma Metabolomics and Breast Cancer Risk over 20 Years of Follow-up among Postmenopausal Women in the Nurses' Health Study. Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 31(4), 839-850. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965. EPI-21-1023
  8. Rudolph, A., Chang-Claude, J., & Schmidt, M. K. (2016). Gene-environment interaction and risk of breast cancer. British journal of cancer, 114(2), 125-133. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.439
  9. Abdollahyan, M., Gadaleta, E., Asif, M., Oscanoa, J., Barrow-McGee, R., Jones, S., Jones, L. J., & Chelala, C. (2023). Dynamic Biobanking for Advancing Breast Cancer Research. Journal of personalized medicine, 13(2), 360. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13020360
  10. Ziegler, R. G., Hoover, R. N., Pike, M. C., Hildesheim, A., Nomura, A. M., West, D. W., Wu-Williams, A. H., Kolonel, L. N., Horn-Ross, P. L., Rosenthal, J. F., & Hyer, M. B. (1993). Migration patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian-American women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(22), 1819-1827. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.22.1819
  11. Lasky-Su, J., Kelly, R. S., Wheelock, C. E., & Broadhurst, D. (2021). A strategy for advancing for population-based scientific discovery using the metabolome: the establishment of the Metabolomics Society Metabolomic Epidemiology Task Group. Metabolomics : Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 17(5), 45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-021-01789-0
  12. Bi, H., Guo, Z., Jia, X., Liu, H., Ma, L., & Xue, L. (2020). The key points in the pre-analytical procedures of blood and urine samples in metabolomics studies. Metabolomics: Official journal of the Metabolomic Society, 16(6), 68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-020-01666-2
  13. Remer, T., Montenegro-Bethancourt, G., & Shi, L. (2014). Long-term urine biobanking: storage stability of clinical chemical parameters under moderate freezing conditions without use of preservatives. Clinical biochemistry, 47(18), 307-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.09.009
  14. Johnson, C. H., & Gonzalez, F. J. (2012). Challenges and opportunities of metabolomics. Journal of cellular physiology, 227(8), 2975-2981. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.24002
  15. Woo, H. M., Kim, K. M., Choi, M. H., Jung, B. H., Lee, J., Kong, G., Nam, S. J., Kim, S., Bai, S. W., & Chung, B. C. (2009). Mass spectrometry based metabolomic approaches in urinary biomarker study of women’s cancers. Clinica Chimica Acta; International Journal of Clinical Chemistry, 400(1-2), 63-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2008.10.014
  16. Singh, D., Ham, D., Kim, S. A., Kothari, D., Park, Y. J., Joung, H., & Lee, C. H. (2024). Urine metabolomics unravel the effects of short-term dietary interventions on oxidative stress and inflammation: a randomized controlled crossover trial. Scientific reports, 14(1), 15277. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65742-6
  17. Slupsky, C. M., Steed, H., Wells, T. H., Dabbs, K., Schepansky, A., Capstick, V., Faught, W., & Sawyer, M. B. (2010). Urine metabolite analysis offers potential early diagnosis of ovarian and breast cancers. Clinical Cancer Research: An Official Journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 16(23), 5835-5841. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-1434
  18. Dannhorn, A., Swales, J. G., Hamm, G., Strittmatter, N., Kudo, H., Maglennon, G., Goodwin, R. J. A., & Takats, Z. (2022). Evaluation of formalin-fixed and FFPE tissues for spatially resolved metabolomics and drug distribution studies. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 15(11), 1307. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15111307
  19. Isaiah, A. R., Luies, L., Loots, D. T., Williams, A. A., Vlok, M., Chegou, N. N., Tutu van Furth, M., van der Kuip, M., & Mason, S. (2024). Protocol for unified metabolomics and proteomics analysis of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. STAR Protocols, 5(4), 103442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xpro.2024.103442
  20. Cai, M., Liu, H., Shao, C., Li, T., Jin, J., Liang, Y., Wang, J., Cao, J., Yang, B., He, Q., Shao, X., & Ying, M. (2025). Metabolomics and metabolites in cancer diagnosis and treatment. Molecular Biomedicine, 6(1), 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43556-025-00362-8
  21. Gong, S., Huang, R., Wang, M., Lian, F., Wang, Q., Liao, Z., & Fan, C. (2024). Comprehensive analysis of the metabolomics and transcriptomics uncovers the dysregulated network and potential biomarkers of Triple Negative Breast Cancer. Journal of Translational Medicine, 22(1), 1016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-024-05843-y
  22. Sancho, P., Barneda, D., & Heeschen, C. (2016). Hallmarks of cancer stem cell metabolism. British Journal of Cancer, 114(12), 1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.152
  23. Choi, J., Kim, D. H., Jung, W. H., & Koo, J. S. (2013). Metabolic interaction between cancer cells and stromal cells according to breast cancer molecular subtype. Breast Cancer Research, 15(5), R78. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3472
Posted in Blog and tagged ,