Editorial
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Hepatol. Jan 27, 2024; 16(1): 12-16
Published online Jan 27, 2024. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v16.i1.12
Table 1 Metabolites as the fibrotic biomarkers of hepatitis C
Ref.
Analyzed cases
Analytical method
Increased metabolites in fibrosis progression
Decreased metabolites in fibrosis progression
Fitian et al[13], 2014Cirrhosis vs healthy non-diabetic controlsGC/MS, UPLC/MS-MSBile acids (taurochenodeoxycholate, taurocholate, etc.), dicarboxylic acids (azelate, undecanedioate, sebacate, etc.)
Sarfaraz et al[14], 2016F3- 4 vs F0- 2 (Metavir) 1H-NMR1,7 dimethylxanthine, caffeine, methylsuccinate, tyrosine, histidine, 2-hydroxyisovalerate, propionate, methionine, methylguanidine, 2-oxoisocaproate, formateN-acetylaspartate, creatinine, urea, threonine, glycine, methylhistidine, adenosine, N-acetylglycine, glutamine, asparagine
Cano et al[15], 2017F2- 4 vs F0- 1 (Metavir)UPLC/MSGlycocholic acid, taurochenodeoxycholic acid, sphingomyelins (d18:0/18:0)BCAA/ArAA
Gaggini et al[16], 2019F5- 6 vs F3- 4 vs F1- 2 (Ishak score)UPLC/QTOF-MSPhosphocholine (40:6)Ceramides (18:1/22:0), (18:1/24:0), diacylglycerol (42:6)
Shanmuganathan et al[17], 2021F2- 4 vs F0- 1 (Metavir)MSI-CE-MS,
1H-NMR
Choline, histidine
Khalil et al[18], 2022Cirrhosis vs non-cirrhosis vs healthy controlsUPLC/MSTaurocholic acid, glycholic acid, glycoursodeoxycholic acid, taurochenodeoxycholic acid, glycochenodeoxycholic acid
Ferrasi et al[19], 2023F1 vs F2 vs F3 vs F4 (Metavir)ESI/MS