Metabolite page

Showing information for HMDB0000271 ('sarcosine')

Metabolite information
HMDB ID	HMDB0000271
Synonyms	(methylamino)-Acetate (methylamino)-Acetic acid (methylamino)Acetate (methylamino)Acetic acid (methylamino)Ethanoate (methylamino)Ethanoic acid L-Sarcosine Magnesium sarcosylate MeGly Methylaminoacetate Methylaminoacetic acid Methylglycine N Methylglycine N-Methyl-glycine N-Methylaminoacetate N-Methylaminoacetic acid N-Methylglycine Sar Sarcosin Sarcosinate Sarcosinate, sodium Sarcosine hydrochloride Sarcosine monosodium salt Sarcosinic acid Sarcosylate, magnesium Sodium sarcosinate
Chemical formula	C3H7NO2
IUPAC name	2-(methylamino)acetic acid
CAS registry number	107-97-1
Monoisotopic molecular weight	89.047678473
Chemical taxonomy
Super class	Organic acids and derivatives
Class	Carboxylic acids and derivatives
Sub class	Amino acids, peptides, and analogues
Biological properties
Pathways (Pathway Details in HMDB)

The paper(s) that report HMDB0000271 as a lung cancer biomarker

Hori et al. 2011;

The studies that identify HMDB0000271 as a lung cancer-related metabolite

Reference	Country	Specimen	Marker function	Participants (Case)						Participants (Control)
Reference	Country	Specimen	Marker function	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
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. 2016a	Poland	serum	diagnosis	adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma	I, II, III	90	58, 32	64 (48-86)	current, non-smoker, unknown	healthy	63	41, 22	62 (43-78)	smoker, non-smoker, unknown
Hori et al. 2011	Japan	serum	diagnosis	adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, SCLC	III, IV	22	–	–	–	healthy	29	23, 6	median: 64 (34-78)	smoker, non-smoker, unknown
Hori et al. 2011	Japan	serum	diagnosis	adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, SCLC	I, II, III, IV	33	26, 7	median: 65 (55-81)	smoker, non-smoker, unknown	healthy	29	23, 6	median: 64 (34-78)	smoker, non-smoker, unknown
Hori et al. 2011	Japan	serum	diagnosis	adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, SCLC	I, II	11	–	–	–	healthy	29	23, 6	median: 64 (34-78)	smoker, non-smoker, unknown
Hori et al. 2011	Japan	tissue	diagnosis	adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, SCLC	–	7	6, 1	median: 61 (53-82)	smoker, non-smoker	tumor vs. adjacent normal tissue	7	6, 1	median: 61 (53-82)	smoker, non-smoker
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	–

Reference	Chromatography	Ion source	Positive/Negative mode	Mass analyzer	Identification level
Mazzone et al. 2016	GC	EI	–	quadrupole	MS/MS
Klupczynska et al. 2016a	LC	–	–	QTRAP	MS/MS
Hori et al. 2011	GC	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	GC	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	GC	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	GC	–	–	–	–
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

Reference	Data processing software	Database search
Mazzone et al. 2016	Metabolon LIMS system	Metabolon LIMS system
Klupczynska et al. 2016a	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	Shimadzu GCMSsolution software	commercially available GC/MS Metabolite Mass Spectral Database (Shimadzu Co.), NIST Mass Spectral Library (NIST 08)
Hori et al. 2011	Shimadzu GCMSsolution software	commercially available GC/MS Metabolite Mass Spectral Database (Shimadzu Co.), NIST Mass Spectral Library (NIST 08)
Hori et al. 2011	Shimadzu GCMSsolution software	commercially available GC/MS Metabolite Mass Spectral Database (Shimadzu Co.), NIST Mass Spectral Library (NIST 08)
Hori et al. 2011	Shimadzu GCMSsolution software	commercially available GC/MS Metabolite Mass Spectral Database (Shimadzu Co.), NIST Mass Spectral Library (NIST 08)
Moreno et al. 2018	–	KEGG, HMDB
Moreno et al. 2018	–	KEGG, HMDB

Differential analysis
Classification analysis

Reference	Difference method	Mean concentration (case)	Mean concentration (control)	Fold change (case/control)	P-value	FDR	VIP
Mazzone et al. 2016	two- sample independent t test	0.6758489± 0.3276988	0.8139574± 0.4335298	0.83	6.75e-03	0.03	–
Klupczynska et al. 2016a	t-test, Welch’s t-test or the Mann-Whitney U test, one-way ANOVA	1.26±0.64 ?M	1.25±0.52 ?M	1.01	0.88	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	student’s t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	1.24	1.00e-04	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	student’s t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	1.17	2.70e-03	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	student’s t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	1.02	0.87	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	student’s t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	0.62	0.37	–	–
Moreno et al. 2018	paired two-sample t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	1.99	8.93e-09	3.36e-08	–
Moreno et al. 2018	paired two-sample t-test, PLS-DA	–	–	1.25	8.15e-03	0.02	–

Reference	Classification method	Cutoff value	AUROC 95%CI	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	Accuracy (%)
Mazzone et al. 2016	–	–	–	–	–	–
Klupczynska et al. 2016a	ROC curve analysis (Monte-Carlo cross validation), discriminant function analysis	–	0.507	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	–	–	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	–	–	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	–	–	–	–	–	–
Hori et al. 2011	–	–	–	–	–	–
Moreno et al. 2018	–	–	–	–	–	–
Moreno et al. 2018	–	–	–	–	–	–