| Literature DB >> 24350298 |
Fen-Qin Chen1, Jiao Wang2, Xiao-Bo Liu1, Xiao-Yu Ma1, Xiu-Bin Zhang3, Ting Huang1, Dong-Wei Ma4, Qiu-Yue Wang4.
Abstract
Although the pathogenetic mechanism of DN has not been elucidated, an inflammatory mechanism has been suggested as a potential contributor. This study was designed to explore the relationship between low-grade inflammation and renal microangiopathy in T2DM. A total of 261 diabetic subjects were divided into three groups according to UAE: a normal albuminuria group, a microalbuminuria group, and a macroalbuminuria group. A control group was also chosen. Levels of hs-CRP, TNF-α, uMCP-1, SAA, SCr, BUN, serum lipid, blood pressure, and HbA1c were measured in all subjects. Compared with the normal controls, levels of hs-CRP, TNF-α, uMCP-1, and SAA in T2DM patients were significantly higher. They were also elevated in the normal albuminuria group, P < 0.05. Compared with the normal albuminuria group, levels of these inflammatory cytokines were significantly higher in the microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria group, P < 0.01. The macroalbuminuria group also showed higher levels than the microalbuminuria group, P < 0.01. Also they were positively correlated with UAE, SBP, DBP, LDL-C, and TC. We noted no significance correlated with course, TG, or HDL-C. Only TNF-α; was positively correlated with HbA1c. This study revealed the importance of these inflammatory cytokines in DN pathogenesis. Further studies are needed to fully establish the potential of these cytokines as additional biomarkers for the development of DN.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24350298 PMCID: PMC3848303 DOI: 10.1155/2013/138969
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Diabetes Res Impact factor: 4.011
Comparison of the general status and study data between diabetes groups and control group.
| C | D1 | D2 | D3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 86 | 112 | 93 | 56 |
| Age (years) | 55.2 ± 12.4 | 54.9 ± 13.1 | 53.7 ± 12.5 | 62.6 ± 11.4 |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | 26.5 ± 3.1 | 26.3 ± 3.7 | 26.2 ± 2.9 | 26.8 ± 3.7 |
| Course (year) | 8.9 ± 1.3 | 9.9 ± 1.7 | 11.8 ± 2.4 | |
| SBP (mmHg) | 111.3 ± 10.3 | 124.0 ± 14.3b | 130.9 ± 16.9b | 135.5 ± 17.3b |
| DBP (mmHg) | 71.4 ± 8.3 | 77.8 ± 6.5b | 82.7 ± 7.8b | 86.1 ± 14.5b |
| SCr ( | 63.62 ± 8.79 | 64.96 ± 15.27 | 69.02 ± 20.32 | 78.49 ± 24.12 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 4.09 ± 1.01 | 6.12 ± 1.31 | 6.41 ± 1.37 | 6.76 ± 1.70 |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.80 ± 3.28 | 8.89 ± 2.59 | 9.97 ± 2.91c | |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.69 ± 1.01 | 1.71 ± 0.97 | 1.99 ± 1.03 | 2.13 ± 1.16 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.33 ± 0.77 | 5.07 ± 0.83b | 5.36 ± 1.35b | 6.40 ± 1.76b |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.92 ± 0.33 | 3.02 ± 0.67b | 2.80 ± 1.23a | 3.97 ± 1.31bcf |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.15 ± 0.12 | 1.17 ± 0.22 | 1.13 ± 0.31 | 1.17 ± 0.30 |
| Hs-CRP (mmol/L) | 1.03 ± 0.94 | 2.41 ± 1.07a | 3.95 ± 1.18bd | 4.51 ± 1.89bdf |
| TNF- | 1.01 ± 0.45 | 1.99 ± 0.56a | 2.73 ± 0.72bd | 4.10 ± 0.95bdf |
| UMCP-1/Ucr (ng/mg) | 4.51 ± 2.29 | 24.70 ± 5.37a | 70.59 ± 18.93bd | 122.85 ± 63.76bdf |
| SAA (ug/L) | 163.90 ± 37.13 | 318.31 ± 34.35a | 490.13 ± 37.24bd | 665.04 ± 64.13bdf |
| Ln (UAE/Ucr)* | 2.19 ± 0.60 | 2.37 ± 0.86a | 4.08 ± 0.58bd | 7.34 ± 0.90bdf |
BMI: body mass index; SBP: systolic blood pressure; DBP: diastolic blood pressure; BUN: blood urea nitrogen; SCr: serum creatinine; HbA1c: glycohemoglobin A1c; TG: triglyceride; LDL-C: low density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C: high density lipoprotein cholesterol; hs-CRP: high sensitivity C-reactive protein; TNF-α: tumor necrosis factor alpha; uMCP-1: urinary monocyte chemoattractant protein-1; SAA: serum amyloid-A; UAE/Ucr: urine albumin excretion/urinary creatinine.
a P < 0.05, b P < 0.01 diabetic patients versus control; c P < 0.05, d P < 0.01 D2 and D3 versus D1; e P < 0.05, f P < 0.01 D3 versus D2.
*Since the figures of UAE/Ucr were not normally distributed, they were transitioned with ln here (similarly hereinafter).
Correlation analysis of inflammation cytokines and various factors.
| hs-CRP | TNF- | uMCP-1 | SAA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Age | 0.135 | 0.244 | 0.194 | 0.093 | 0.249* | 0.030 | 0.212 | 0.065 |
| BMI | 0.111 | 0.340 | −0.096 | 0.409 | −0.065 | 0.575 | −0.069 | 0.555 |
| Course | 0.205 | 0.158 | 0.141 | 0.334 | 0.169 | 0.247 | 0.195 | 0.179 |
| SBP | 0.431** | <0.001 | 0.522** | <0.001 | 0.427** | <0.001 | 0.615** | <0.001 |
| DBP | 0.413** | <0.001 | 0.497** | <0.001 | 0.279* | 0.015 | 0.507** | <0.001 |
| TG | 0.178 | 0.125 | 0.121 | 0.296 | 0.184 | 0.111 | 0.112 | 0.336 |
| HDL-C | −0.120 | 0.301 | −0.154 | 0.184 | −0.175 | 0.130 | −0.120 | 0.300 |
| LDL-C | 0.507** | <0.001 | 0.431** | <0.001 | 0.322** | 0.005 | 0.559** | <0.001 |
| TC | 0.510** | <0.001 | 0.383** | <0.001 | 0.333** | 0.003 | 0.527** | <0.001 |
| HbA1c | 0.235 | 0.104 | 0.303* | 0.034 | 0.249 | 0.085 | 0.198 | 0.173 |
| Ln (UAE/Ucr) | 0.675** | <0.001 | 0.813** | <0.001 | 0.798** | <0.001 | 0.824** | <0.001 |
**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Predictors of proteinuria in DN by multiple linear regressiona,b.
| Unstandardized coefficients |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Std error | |||
| Constant | −0.357 | 0.083 | −4.304 | <0.001 |
| Age | −0.115 | 0.088 | −1.306 | 0.199 |
| BMI | −0.004 | 0.081 | −0.055 | 0.956 |
| Course | 0.080 | 0.084 | 0.948 | 0.349 |
| HbA1c | 0.196 | 0.085 | 2.288 | 0.027 |
| Principal component for SBP and DBPc | 0.112 | 0.087 | 1.298 | 0.202 |
| Principal component 1 for TG, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-Cd | 0.052 | 0.077 | 0.679 | 0.501 |
| Principal component 2 for TG, TC, HDL-C, and LDL-Cd | −0.070 | 0.078 | −0.894 | 0.376 |
| Principal component for hs-CRP, TNF- | 1.184 | 0.009 | 13.103 | <0.001 |
aDependent variable: ln (UAE/Ucr).
bEach variable was standardized by using Z scores before being entered into the regression model.
cSince the values of SBP and DBP were correlated, their unique principal component was substituted for them in the model and the principal component = 0.928 ∗ SBP + 0.928 ∗ DBP. In the formula, each variable was no longer the original variable, but standardized variable and the coefficients before the standardized variables represented the correlation coefficients of principal component and the corresponding original variables. So this formula showed that SBP and DBP were highly correlated and the extracted component could nearly represent the variables of SBP and DBP.
dSince the values of TC, TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C were correlated, their two principal components were substituted for them in the model and the principal component 1 = 0.289 ∗ TG + 0.223 ∗ HDL-C + 0.892 ∗ LDL-C + 0.919 ∗ TC, the principal component 2 = 0.770 ∗ TG − 0.793 ∗ HDL-C − 0.090 ∗ LDL-C + 0.128 ∗ TC. In the formulas, each variable was no longer the original variable but standardized variable and the coefficients before the standardized variables represented the correlation coefficients of principal component and the corresponding original variables. So formula 1 showed that LDL-C and TC were highly correlated and component 1 could represent the variables of LDL-C and TC, while formula 2 showed that TG and HDL-C were highly correlated and component 2 could represent the variables of TG and HDL-C.
eSince the values of hs-CRP, TNF-α, uMCP-1, and SAA were correlated, their unique principal component was substituted for them in the model and the principal component = 0.841 ∗ hs-CRP + 0.928 ∗ TNF-α + 0.883 ∗ uMCP-1 + 0.944 ∗ SAA. In the formula, each variable was no longer the original variable, but standardized variable and the coefficients before the standardized variables represented the correlation coefficients of principal component and the corresponding original variables. Since only one principal component was extracted among the four inflammatory factors and the correlation coefficients were all close to 1, it showed that the four inflammatory factors were highly correlated and the component could almost contain all the information of the four variables.