Showing information for HMDB0002068 ('erucate', 'fatty acid amide C22:1')

Metabolite information
HMDB ID HMDB0002068
Synonyms
13-Docosenoate
13-Docosenoic acid
13-Docosenoic acid [acd/name 4.0]
13-cis-Docosenoate
13-cis-Docosenoic acid
22:1Omega9
C22:1N-9
Cellular membrane
Coffee
Coffee bean
Cucurbits
Cytoplasma
Delta.13-cis-docosenoate
Delta.13-cis-docosenoic acid
Digestion
Docos-13C-enoate
Docos-13C-enoic acid
Erucasaeure
Erucate
Erucic acid, [Z]-isomer
Erucic acid, [e]-isomer
Erucic acid, potassium salt, [Z]-isomer
Erucic acid, sodium salt, [Z]-isomer
Extracellular region
Faecal
Faeces
Fauna
Fecal
Flora
Gourds
Gramineae
Legume
Lipid body
Lipid droplet
Lipid metabolic process
Lipid particle
Membrane integrity agent
Membrane stability agent
Papilionoideae
Prifrac 2990
Signal transduction
Soy
Soya
Soya bean
Soybean
Stool
Surface-active agent
[13Z]-13-Docosenoate
[13Z]-13-Docosenoic acid
[13Z]-Docosenoate
[13Z]-Docosenoic acid
[Z]-13-Docosenoate
[Z]-13-Docosenoic acid
[Z]-Docos-13-enoate
[Z]-Docos-13-enoic acid
cis-13-Docosenoate
cis-13-Docosenoic acid
cis-Delta[13]-Docosenoic acid
cis-Eruate
cis-Erucic acid
cis-Eruic acid
cis-delta[13]-Docosenoate
cis-δ[13]-docosenoate
cis-δ[13]-docosenoic acid
delta 13-cis-Docosenoate
delta 13-cis-Docosenoic acid
Chemical formula C22H42O2
IUPAC name
(13Z)-docos-13-enoic acid
CAS registry number 112-86-7
Monisotopic molecular weight 338.318480588

Chemical taxonomy
Super class Lipids and lipid-like molecules
Class Fatty Acyls
Sub class Fatty acids and conjugates

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

Lung cancer metabolomics studies that identify HMDB0002068 ('erucate', 'fatty acid amide C22:1')

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
Li et al. 2014 – serum diagnosis NSCLC, SCLC – 23 12, 11 63.0 ± 9.8 / 59.4 ± 5.8 – healthy 23 11, 12 51.0 ± 11.1 / 56.3 ± 14.3 –
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 –
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 –
Reference Chromatography Ion source Positive/Negative mode Mass analyzer Identification level
Li et al. 2014 LC – positive Q-TOF MS/MS
Mazzone et al. 2016 LC ESI negative linear ion-trap 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
Reference Data processing software Database search
Li et al. 2014 MarkerLynx METLIN, HMDB, KEGG
Mazzone et al. 2016 Metabolon LIMS system Metabolon LIMS system
Moreno et al. 2018 – KEGG, HMDB
Moreno et al. 2018 – KEGG, HMDB
Reference Difference method Mean concentration (case) Mean concentration (control) Fold change (case/control) P-value FDR VIP
Li et al. 2014 PCA, PLS-DA, OSC-PLS-DA, student’s t-test – – – < 0.05 – 1.3
Mazzone et al. 2016 two- sample independent t test 1.465409± 1.357844 1.403337± 2.965158 1.04423171340882 0.8468682 0.780448198 –
Moreno et al. 2018 paired two‐sample t‐test, PLS-DA – – 2.30244396559174 0.00000160216333606732 0.000010766518195009 –
Moreno et al. 2018 paired two‐sample t‐test, PLS-DA – – 4.62707734814085 0.00000000000000587098436824262 0.000000000000173520204661393 –
Reference Classification method Cutoff value AUROC 95%CI Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) Accuracy (%)
Li et al. 2014 ROC curve analysis – – – – –
Mazzone et al. 2016 – – – – – –
Moreno et al. 2018 – – – – – –
Moreno et al. 2018 – – – – – –