Showing information for HMDB0000474 ('2-butanon', '2-butanone')

Metabolite information
HMDB ID HMDB0000474
Synonyms
2-Butanon
2-Butanone
3-Butanone
Aethylmethylketon
Butan-2-one
Butanone 2
C2H5COCH3
Ethyl methyl cetone
Ethyl methyl ketone
Ethyl(methyl) ketone
Ethylmethyl ketone
Ethylmethylketon
MEK
Meetco
Methyl acetone
Methyl ethyl cetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl(ethyl) ketone
Methylacetone
Methylethyl ketone
Methylethylketon
Oxobutane
Chemical formula C4H8O
IUPAC name
butan-2-one
CAS registry number 78-93-3
Monoisotopic molecular weight 72.057514878

Chemical taxonomy
Super class Organic oxygen compounds
Class Organooxygen compounds
Sub class Carbonyl compounds

Biological properties
Pathways (Pathway Details in HMDB)

The paper(s) that report HMDB0000474 as a lung cancer biomarker




The studies that identify HMDB0000474 as a lung cancer-related metabolite

Reference Country Specimen Marker function Participants (Case) Participants (Control)
Cancer type Stage Number Gender (M,F) Age mean (range) (M/F) Smoking status Type Number Gender (M,F) Age mean (range) (M/F) Smoking status
Ligor et al. 2009 Austria exhaled breath diagnosis NSCLC, SCLC, mesothelioma, carcinoid – 65 41, 24 – former, current, non-smoker healthy 31 – – former, current, non-smoker
Filipiak et al. 2014 Austria tissue diagnosis NSCLC, SCLC I, II, III, IV 14 6, 8 67.7, 63.4 smoker, non-smoker tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue 13 12, 16 52 ± 17 former, non-smokers
Filipiak et al. 2014 Austria exhaled breath diagnosis SCLC, squamous cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma, large cell carcinoma, mesothelioma, carcinoid – 36 25, 11 63 ± 7 former, non-smokers healthy 28 12, 16 52 ± 17 former, non-smokers
Wang et al. 2014 China exhaled breath diagnosis adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma I, II, IV 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue (postoperative contralateral vs. ipsilateral) 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker
Wang et al. 2014 China exhaled breath diagnosis adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma I, II, IV 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue (preoperative contralateral vs. ipsilateral) 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker
Wang et al. 2014 China exhaled breath diagnosis adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, adenosquamous carcinoma I, II, IV 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker before vs. after treatment (operation) 18 13, 5 58.67 ± 6.34 smoker
Li et al. 2015 US exhaled breath diagnosis lung cancer I, II, III, IV 85 46, 39 66.12 ± 10.1 former, current, non-smoker healthy 85 43, 42 42.15 ± 14.2 current, non-smoker
Li et al. 2015 US exhaled breath diagnosis lung cancer I, II, III, IV 85 46, 39 66.12 ± 10.1 former, current, non-smoker healthy 45 – – current
Li et al. 2015 US exhaled breath diagnosis lung cancer I, II, III, IV 85 46, 39 66.12 ± 10.1 former, current, non-smoker healthy 40 – – non-smoker
Capuano et al. 2015 Italy exhaled breath (air) – adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma – 20 13, 7 67 ± 9 former, current, non-smoker other lung diseases 10 4, 6 64 ± 7 former, current, non-smoker
Reference Chromatography Ion source Positive/Negative mode Mass analyzer Identification level
Ligor et al. 2009 GC EI – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 GC – – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 GC – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 GC EI – – –
Wang et al. 2014 GC EI – – –
Wang et al. 2014 GC EI – – –
Li et al. 2015 DI nano-ESI – LTQ-FT-ICR MS/MS
Li et al. 2015 DI nano-ESI – LTQ-FT-ICR MS/MS
Li et al. 2015 DI nano-ESI – LTQ-FT-ICR MS/MS
Capuano et al. 2015 GC EI – quadrupole –
Reference Data processing software Database search
Ligor et al. 2009 – NIST 2005
Filipiak et al. 2014 – NIST 2005
Filipiak et al. 2014 – NIST 2005
Wang et al. 2014 XCMS –
Wang et al. 2014 XCMS –
Wang et al. 2014 XCMS –
Li et al. 2015 – –
Li et al. 2015 – –
Li et al. 2015 – –
Capuano et al. 2015 GC-MS solutions software NIST 127, NIST 147
Reference Difference method Mean concentration (case) Mean concentration (control) Fold change (case/control) P-value FDR VIP
Ligor et al. 2009 – – – – – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 Kruskal–Wallis test, Spearman – – – – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 Kruskal–Wallis test, Spearman – – – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 PCA, PLS-DA, OPLS-DA, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test – – 12.55 3.41e-03 – 1.29
Wang et al. 2014 PCA, PLS-DA, OPLS-DA, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test – – – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 PCA, PLS-DA, OPLS-DA, Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test – – – – – –
Li et al. 2015 Kruskal-Wallis test – – – – – –
Li et al. 2015 Kruskal-Wallis test – – – – – –
Li et al. 2015 Kruskal-Wallis test – – – – – –
Capuano et al. 2015 Kruskal-Wallis rank test, PLS-DA – – – 0.89 – –
Reference Classification method Cutoff value AUROC 95%CI Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%)
Ligor et al. 2009 – – – – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 Kruskal–Wallis test, Spearman – – – – –
Filipiak et al. 2014 Kruskal–Wallis test, Spearman – – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 – – – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 – – – – – –
Wang et al. 2014 – – – – – –
Li et al. 2015 ROC curve 2.36 0.901 – – –
Li et al. 2015 ROC curve 2.365 0.931 – – –
Li et al. 2015 ROC curve 2.255 0.934 – – –
Capuano et al. 2015 – – – – – –