Showing information for HMDB0006344 ('alpha-N-phenylacetyl-L-glutamine', 'phenylacetylglutamine', 'α-N-phenylacetyl-L-glutamine')

Metabolite information
HMDB ID HMDB0006344
Synonyms
Cytoplasma
Extracellular region
N-Phenylacetylglutamine
N2-[2-Phenylacetyl]-L-glutamine
N2-[Phenylacetyl]-L-glutamine
N[2]-[2-Phenylacetyl]-L-glutamine
N[2]-[Phenylacetyl]-L-glutamine
Phenylacetyl-L-glutamine
Phenylacetylglutamine
a-N-Phenylacetyl-L-glutamine
alpha-N-Phenylacetyl-L-glutamine
alpha-N-Phenylacetylglutamine
Α-N-phenylacetyl-L-glutamine
α-N-Phenylacetylglutamine
Chemical formula C13H16N2O4
IUPAC name
(2S)-4-carbamoyl-2-(2-phenylacetamido)butanoic acid
CAS registry number 28047-15-6
Monisotopic molecular weight 264.11100701

Chemical taxonomy
Super class Organic acids and derivatives
Class Carboxylic acids and derivatives
Sub class Amino acids, peptides, and analogues

Biological properties
Pahtways
Phenylacetate Metabolism
Author-emphasized biomarker in the paper(s)

Lung cancer metabolomics studies that identify HMDB0006344 ('alpha-N-phenylacetyl-L-glutamine', 'phenylacetylglutamine', 'α-N-phenylacetyl-L-glutamine')

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
Mazzone et al. 2016 – 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 – 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 – 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 –
Moreno et al. 2018 – 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 –
Yang et al. 2010 – urine diagnosis adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma – 35 23, 12 61.8 ± 13.3, 57.4 ± 9.8 – healthy 32 27, 5 57.1 ± 9.9 / 45.6 ± 10.8 –
Reference Chromatography Ion source Positive/Negative mode Mass analyzer Identification level
Mazzone et al. 2016 LC ESI positive linear ion-trap MS/MS
Klupczynska et al. 2017 LC ESI positive Quadrupole- Orbitrap MS/MS
Moreno et al. 2018 LC, GC ESI, EI positive, negative LC: linear ion‐trap, GC: single‐quadrupole LC: MS/MS
Moreno et al. 2018 LC, GC ESI, EI positive, negative LC: linear ion‐trap, GC: single‐quadrupole LC: MS/MS
Yang et al. 2010 LC ESI positive QTRAP MS/MS
Reference Data processing software Database search
Mazzone et al. 2016 Metabolon LIMS system Metabolon LIMS system
Klupczynska et al. 2017 MZmine 2.19 software HMDB, mzCloud
Moreno et al. 2018 – KEGG, HMDB
Moreno et al. 2018 – KEGG, HMDB
Yang et al. 2010 MarkerView HMDB, KEGG, Pubchem, mass bank
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 1.244585± 1.3117582 1.136857± 0.7772987 1.09475949921582 0.3864865 0.48073639 –
Klupczynska et al. 2017 t-test – – 0.58 0.0011 0.01002 –
Moreno et al. 2018 paired two‐sample t‐test, PLS-DA – – 0.815903776155502 0.00000172519924450312 0.0000111376833578951 –
Moreno et al. 2018 paired two‐sample t‐test, PLS-DA – – 0.791874927693385 0.00000000373854015277172 0.0000000155383075099575 –
Yang et al. 2010 OSC PLS‐DA – – 2 – – 2.06
Reference Classification method Cutoff value AUROC 95%CI Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%)
Mazzone et al. 2016 – – – – – –
Klupczynska et al. 2017 ROC curve analysis (Monte-Carlo cross validation) – 0.731 (0.608–0.835) 0.56 0.8 –
Moreno et al. 2018 – – – – – –
Moreno et al. 2018 – – – – – –
Yang et al. 2010 – – – – – –