| Literature DB >> 20978097 |
Thomas Prikoszovich1, Christine Winzer, Albrecht Ingo Schmid, Julia Szendroedi, Marek Chmelik, Giovanni Pacini, Martin Krssák, Ewald Moser, Tohru Funahashi, Werner Waldhäusl, Alexandra Kautzky-Willer, Michael Roden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ectopic lipid storage in muscle (intramyocellular lipids [IMCL]) and liver (hepatocellular lipids [HCL]) coexists with impaired myocellular flux through ATP synthase (fATPase) in certain cohorts with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Because women with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (pGDM) have elevated ectopic lipids and diabetes risk, we tested whether deteriorated energy metabolism contributes to these abnormalities. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 23 glucose-tolerant nonobese pGDM and eight women with normal glucose metabolism during pregnancy with similar age, body mass, and physical activity underwent oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT) and intravenous glucose tolerance tests at 4-5 years after delivery. OGTT values <463 mL ⋅ min(-1) ⋅ m(-2) were considered to indicate insulin resistance. pGDM were further stratified into insulin-resistant (pGDM-IR) and insulin-sensitive (pGDM-IS) groups. IMCL, HCL, and fATPase were measured with (1)H/(31)P magnetic resonance spectroscopy.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20978097 PMCID: PMC3024362 DOI: 10.2337/dc10-1002
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Care ISSN: 0149-5992 Impact factor: 19.112
Clinical characteristics and metabolic parameters (means ± SD) of women with pGDM and their insulin-resistant (pGDM-IR) and insulin-sensitive (pGDM-IS) subgroups compared with control subjects (CON)
| pGDM | pGDM-IR | pGDM-IS | CON | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 14 | 9 | 8 | |||||
| Age (years) | 37 ± 5 | 37 ± 5.9 | 39 ± 3 | 35 ± 4 | NS | NS | NS | 0.06 |
| Time after delivery (m) | 57 ± 11 | 56 ± 14 | 59 ± 6 | 45 ± 15 | 0.02 | NS | NS | NS |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.5 ± 3.6 | 26.5 ± 3.0 | 24.2 ± 4.1 | 25.0 ± 2.9 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| BFM (kg) | 24.5 ± 6 | 26.1 ± 5.1 | 22.2 ± 6.8 | 18.0 ± 3.3 | <0.03 | NS | <0.02 | NS |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 85.5 ± 9.4 | 87.9 ± 7.3 | 82.2 ± 11.2 | 76.0 ± 8.2 | 0.03 | NS | 0.02 | NS |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 85.2 ± 38.6 | 94.1 ± 42.4 | 71.3 ± 28.7 | 97.0 ± 37.5 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| HDL-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 55.6 ± 12.5 | 52.8 ± 13.3 | 59.9 ± 10.4 | 64.5 ± 10.1 | <0.05 | NS | 0.02 | NS |
| A1C (%) | 5.4 ± 0.4 | 5.3 ± 0.5 | 5.4 ± 0.3 | 5.2 ± 0.2 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| GGT (units/L) | 18 ± 7 | 20 ± 7 | 15 ± 6 | 23 ± 24 | NS | 0.03 | NS | NS |
| Adiponectin (µg/mL) | 7.9 ± 2.5 | 7.3 ± 2.2 | 8.9 ± 2.7 | 9.1 ± 2.3 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| us-CRP (mg/dL) | 0.19 ± 1.67 | 0.20 ± 0.17 | 0.17 ± 0.18 | 0.25 ± 0.24 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Physical activity score | 2.68 ± 0.51 | 2.58 ± 0.5 | 2.85 ± 0.53 | 2.75 ± 0.12 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Resting energy expenditure (kcal/24 h) | 1541 ± 255 | 1587 ± 250 | 1449 ± 270 | 1440 ± 215 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
IR was defined by means of OGIS <462.8 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2.
GGT, gamma glutamyl transferase; us-CRP, ultra-sensitive C-reactive protein.
*pGDM vs. CON.
†pGDM-IS vs. pGDM-IR.
‡pGDM-IR vs. CON.
§pGDM-IS vs. CON.
Glucose metabolism, insulin sensitivity, and secretion (all expressed as means ± SD) in women with pGDM and their insulin-resistant (pGDM-IR) and insulin-sensitive (pGDM-IS) subgroups compared with control subjects (CON)
| pGDM | pGDM-IR | pGDM-IS | CON | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | 14 | 9 | 8 | |||||
| Fasting glucose (mg/dL) | 90 ± 9 | 92.3 ± 11 | 86.3 ± 3 | 84 ± 9 | NS | NS | NS | NS |
| Fasting insulin (µU/mL) | 9.8 ± 5.7 | 11.6 ± 6.5 | 7.2 ± 2.5 | 7.6 ± 1.6 | NS | NS | ||
| Fasting C-peptide (ng/mL) | 1.89 ± 0.98 | 2.26 ± 1.12 | 1.37 ± 0.42 | 2.00 ± 0.43 | NS | <0.05 | ||
| QUICKI | 0.348 ± 0.027 | 0.337 ± 0.024 | 0.364 ± 0.024 | 0.357 ± 0.018 | NS | <0.05 | ||
| 1-h glucose (mg/dL)OGTT | 144 ± 42 | 155 ± 44 | 126 ± 32 | 106 ± 47 | NS | NS | 0.04 | NS |
| 2-h glucose (mg/dL)OGTT | 109 ± 32 | 117 ± 39 | 98 ± 12 | 85 ± 22 | 0.05 | NS | NS | NS |
| Fasting FFA (µmol/L)OGTT | 551 ± 206 | 522 ± 150 | 597 ± 277 | 659 ± 256 | NS | NS | ||
| 2-h FFA (mmol/L)OGTT | 33 ± 18 | 39 ± 19 | 23 ± 12 | 42 ± 25 | NS | <0.04 | NS | NS |
| AUCGLUC (mol/L min) | 1.21 ± 0.13 | 1.30 ± 0.08 | 1.10 ± 0.07 | 1.07 ± 0.16 | NS | <0.05 | ||
| AUCINS (nmol/L min) | 61.75 ± 41.0 | 74.76 ± 47.8 | 41.52 ± 12.4 | 50.39 ± 41.6 | NS | <0.05 | ||
IR was defined by means of OGIS <462.8 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2.
Fasting FFA, basal free fatty acid; 2-h FFA, free fatty acid at 120 min; QUICKI, quantitative insulin-sensitivity check index; AUCGLUC, area under the glucose concentration curve; AUCINS, area under the insulin concentration curve.
*pGDM vs. CON.
†pGDM-IR vs. pGDM-IS.
‡pGDM-IR vs. CON.
§pGDM-IS vs. CON.
Figure 1Myocellular fATPase (A and C) and insulin sensitivity (B and D) as assessed from the OGTT (OGIS) in pGDM compared with CON (A and B) and in IR and IS subgroups of the total cohort according to their insulin sensitivity (OGIS) (C and D). Data are presented as box-and-whisker plots. Boxes delineate lower and upper quartile, whiskers represent minima and maxima, medians are indicated by solid line within boxes, and small circles/asterisks represent experimental outliers. fATPase: pGDM vs. CON (10.6 ± 3.8 µmol ⋅ mL muscle−1 ⋅ min−1 vs. 12.1 ± 1.4 µmol ⋅ mL muscle−1 ⋅ min−1; P < 0.12, **after log transformation: P < 0.03), OGIS (glucose clearance): pGDM vs. CON (447 ± 67 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2 vs. 508 ± 87 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2; P < 0.05), fATPase: IR vs. IS (10.7 ± 3.7 µmol ⋅ mL muscle−1 ⋅ min−1 vs. 11.4 ± 3.0 µmol ⋅ mL muscle−1 ⋅ min−1; P = 0.6 NS), OGIS (glucose clearance): IR vs. IS (402 ± 38 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2 vs. 528 ± 46 mL ⋅ min−1 ⋅ m−2; P < 0.0001).
Figure 2IMCL and HCL. Ectopic lipids in skeletal muscle (IMCL; A and C) and liver (HCL; B and D) of pGDM compared with CON (A and B) and in IR and IS subgroups of the total cohort according to their insulin sensitivity (OGIS) (C and D). Data presented as box-and-whisker plots. Boxes delineate lower and upper quartile, whiskers represent minima and maxima, respectively, medians are indicated by solid line within boxes, and small circles/asterisks represent experimental outliers. IMCL: pGDM vs. CON (0.73 ± 0.32% H2O vs. 0.69 ± 0.5% H2O; P = 0.08 NS) HCL: pGDM vs. CON (3.7 ± 3.5% vs. 1.5 ± 0.9% signal; P < 0.05) IMCL: IR vs. IS (0.90 ± 0.3% H2O vs. 0.54 ± 0.32% H2O; P < 0.003) HCL: IR vs. IS (4.0 ± 3.3% vs. 2.0 ± 1.8% signal; P < 0.05).