Metabolite information |
|
| HMDB ID | HMDB0013128 |
| Synonyms |
C5-CarnitineO-Valeroyl-L-carnitinePentanoyl-L-carnitinePentanoylcarnitineValeryl-L-carnitine |
| Chemical formula | C12H24NO4 |
| IUPAC name | [(2R)-3-carboxy-2-(pentanoyloxy)propyl]trimethylazanium |
| CAS registry number | 40225-14-7 |
| Monoisotopic molecular weight | 246.169984677 |
Chemical taxonomy |
|
| Super class | Lipids and lipid-like molecules |
| Class | Fatty Acyls |
| Sub class | Fatty acid esters |
Biological properties |
|
| Pathways (Pathway Details in HMDB) |
|
| 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 | ||||
| Ni et al. 2019 | China | serum | diagnosis | NSCLC, SCLC | II, III, IV | 17 | 13, 4 | 66.3 (53-77) | former, current, non-smoker | healthy | 30 | 23, 7 | 62.8 (34-85) | former, current, non-smoker |
| Ni et al. 2019 | China | serum | diagnosis | lung cancer | – | 40 | 26, 14 | 66.7 (49-83) | – | healthy | 100 | 65, 35 | 64.1 (41-90) | – |
| Ni et al. 2016 | China | serum | diagnosis | lung cancer | – | 40 | 14, 26 | 67 | – | healthy | 100 | – | – | – |
| Mazzone et al. 2016 | US | serum | – | adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma | I, II, III | 94 | 55.3%, 44.7% | 68.7 | – | at-risk controls | 190 | 50.5%, 49.5% | 66.2 | – |
| Klupczynska et al. 2017 | Poland | serum | diagnosis | adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma | I, II | 50 | 28, 22 | 65 (53-86) | – | healthy | 25 | 14, 11 | 64 (50-78) | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | Spain | tissue | therapy, diagnosis | squamous cell carcinoma | I, II, III | 35 | 35, 0 | 68.71 ± 7.46 | – | tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue | 35 | 35, 0 | 68.71 ± 7.46 | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | Spain | tissue | therapy, diagnosis | adenocarcinoma | I, II, III | 33 | 24, 9 | 62.11 ± 9.73 | – | tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue | 33 | 24, 9 | 62.11 ± 9.73 | – |
| Kowalczyk et al. 2021 | Poland | Tissue | diagnosis | adenocarcinoma (ADC) | I, II, III | 33 | 23, 10 | 64.77 ± 8.44 | – | healthy control | 20 | 13, 7 | 61.5 ± 12.06 | – |
| Reference | Chromatography | Ion source | Positive/Negative mode | Mass analyzer | Identification level |
| Ni et al. 2019 | LC | ESI | positive | triple quadrupole | MS/MS |
| Ni et al. 2019 | LC | ESI | positive | triple quadrupole | MS/MS |
| Ni et al. 2016 | LC | ESI | positive | Triple quadrupole | MS/MS |
| Mazzone et al. 2016 | LC | ESI | positive | linear ion-trap | MS/MS |
| Klupczynska et al. 2017 | LC | ESI | positive | Q-Orbitrap | MS/MS |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | LC, GC | ESI, EI | both | LC: linear ion-trap, GC: single-quadrupole | LC: MS/MS |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | LC, GC | ESI, EI | both | LC: linear ion-trap, GC: single-quadrupole | LC: MS/MS |
| Kowalczyk et al. 2021 | LC | ESI | both | Q-TOF | – |
| Reference | Data processing software | Database search |
| Ni et al. 2019 | – | HMDB, KEGG, SMPDB |
| Ni et al. 2019 | – | HMDB, KEGG, SMPDB |
| Ni et al. 2016 | – | – |
| Mazzone et al. 2016 | Metabolon LIMS system | Metabolon LIMS system |
| Klupczynska et al. 2017 | MZmine 2.19 software | In-house library |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | – | KEGG, HMDB |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | – | KEGG, HMDB |
| Kowalczyk et al. 2021 | Mass Hunter Qualitative Analysis Software, Mass Profiler Professional | METLIN, KEGG, LIPIDMAPS, and HMDB |
| Reference | Difference method | Mean concentration (case) | Mean concentration (control) | Fold change (case/control) | P-value | FDR | VIP |
| Ni et al. 2019 | Mann-Whitney U test, Student's t-test, Welch's F test | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.75 | 0.02 | – | – |
| Ni et al. 2019 | Mann-Whitney U test, Student's t-test, Welch's F test | 0.18 | 0.09 | 2.00 | 1.00e-03 | – | – |
| Ni et al. 2016 | one-way ANOVA | 0.18 ± 0.09 μmol/L | 0.10 ± 0.04 μmol/L | – | 1.00e-04 | – | – |
| Mazzone et al. 2016 | two- sample independent t test | 0.7506213± 0.4477842 | 0.6762532± 0.4242761 | 1.11 | 0.17 | 0.28 | – |
| Klupczynska et al. 2017 | t-test | – | – | 0.66 | 5.00e-05 | 1.03e-03 | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | paired two-sample t-test, PLS-DA | – | – | 1.85 | 7.62e-06 | 1.68e-05 | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | paired two-sample t-test, PLS-DA | – | – | 1.70 | 3.53e-05 | 1.42e-04 | – |
| Kowalczyk et al. 2021 | Mann–Whitney U-test and Benjamini–Hochberg false discovery rate, partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) | – | – | – | 0.02 | – | – |
| Reference | Classification method | Cutoff value | AUROC 95%CI | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Accuracy (%) |
| Ni et al. 2019 | ROC analysis | – | 0.285 | – | – | – |
| Ni et al. 2019 | ROC analysis | – | 0.818 | – | – | – |
| Ni et al. 2016 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Mazzone et al. 2016 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Klupczynska et al. 2017 | ROC curve analysis (Monte-Carlo cross validation) | – | 0.754 (0.616–0.865) | 0.71 | 0.68 | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Moreno et al. 2018 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Kowalczyk et al. 2021 | – | – | – | – | – | – |