| Literature DB >> 27077117 |
Zhi-Peng Xu1, Su-Lian Yang2, Shi Zhao3, Cheng-Hong Zheng4, Hong-Hua Li5, Yao Zhang6, Rong-Xi Huang7, Meng-Zhu Li7, Yuan Gao7, Shu-Juan Zhang7, Pei-Yan Zhan8, Li-Fang Zhang4, Lin Deng3, Sheng Wei2, Yan-Chao Liu7, Jing-Wang Ye7, Hu-Jun Ren9, Na Li3, Cai-Xia Kong10, Xin Wang7, Lin Fang7, Qiu-Zhi Zhou7, Hong-Wei Jiang2, Jing-Rong Li11, Qun Wang12, Dan Ke12, Gong-Ping Liu12, Jian-Zhi Wang12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) are common age-associated disorders and T2DM patients show an increased risk to suffer from AD, however, there is currently no marker to identify who in T2DM populations will develop AD. Since glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) activity, ApoE genotypes and olfactory function are involved in both T2DM and AD pathogenesis, we investigate whether alterations of these factors can identify cognitive impairment in T2DM patients.Entities:
Keywords: AD, Alzheimer's disease; ARMS, amplification refractory mutation system; AUC, the area under the curve; Alzheimer's disease; ApoE gene; ApoE, apolipoprotein E; CCCRC, Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center; CDR, clinical dementia rating; CI, confidence intervals; GSK-3β, glycogen synthase kinase-3β; Glycogen synthase kinase-3β; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; MMSE, minimum mental state examination; Mild cognitive impairment; OR, odds ratio; Olfactory score; ROC, receiver operating characteristics; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; Type 2 diabetes mellitus
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27077117 PMCID: PMC4816853 DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.02.014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EBioMedicine ISSN: 2352-3964 Impact factor: 8.143
Fig. 1Study profile.
Baseline characteristics of T2DM patients in the training set and the validation set.
| Characteristic | The training set | The validation set | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2DM-nMCI (n = 260) | T2DM-MCI (n = 85) | T2DM-nMCI (n = 201) | T2DM-MCI (n = 100) | |
| Age (years) | 60.31 ± 6.34 | 65.34 ± 8.37 | 63.24 ± 8.00 | 67.91 ± 8.68 |
| Male (%) | 42.31% | 37.65% | 46.77% | 35.00% |
| T2DM years | 7.29 ± 5.27 | 8.49 ± 6.86 | 8.45 ± 6.89 | 8.80 ± 7.85 |
| Hypertension | 45.38% | 37.65% | 53.23% | 62.00% |
| Hyperlipidemia | 6.54% | 4.71% | 8.96% | 11.00% |
| Coronary disease | 8.85% | 3.53% | 8.46% | 15.00% |
| Complication | 64.23% | 58.83% | 47.26% | 42.00% |
| Insulin treatment | 47.69% | 44.71% | 41.79% | 36.00% |
| MMSE | 29.05 ± 0.85 | 26.00 ± 1.13 | 29.10 ± 0.80 | 24.94 ± 2.94 |
Data are mean ± SD or n (%). T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus. MCI = mild cognitive impairment. T2DM-nMCI = T2DM without MCI group. T2DM-MCI = T2DM with MCI group. MMSE = the Minimum Mental State Examination.
P < 0.05 versus the T2DM-nMCI group.
Potential markers of T2DM patients in the training set and the validation set.
| Characteristic | The training set | The validation set | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2DM-nMCI (n = 260) | T2DM-MCI (n = 85) | T2DM-nMCI (n = 201) | T2DM-MCI (n = 100) | |
| Olfactory | 6.31 ± 1.33 | 7.37 ± 1.91 | 6.76 ± 1.48 | 8.02 ± 1.82 |
| HbA1c | 8.19 ± 2.12 | 8.27 ± 2.09 | 7.82 ± 1.81 | 8.20 ± 1.89 |
| ApoE ε2 | 11.92% | 11.76% | 23.88% | 21.00% |
| ApoE ε3 | 96.92% | 94.12% | 93.03% | 87.00% |
| ApoE ε4 | 13.08% | 27.06% | 10.45% | 25.00% |
| tGSK3β | 1.34 ± 1.93 | 1.92 ± 3.16 | 1.85 ± 3.62 | 2.74 ± 3.97 |
| pS9GSK3β | 2.13 ± 4.00 | 2.94 ± 6.53 | 3.02 ± 3.92 | 2.64 ± 4.05 |
| rGSK3β | 0.76 ± 0.28 | 1.19 ± 0.67 | 0.70 ± 0.46 | 1.66 ± 1.04 |
Data are mean ± SD or n (%). T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus. MCI = mild cognitive impairment. T2DM-nMCI = T2DM without MCI group. T2DM-MCI = T2DM with MCI group. HbA1c = hemoglobin A1c. ApoE = Apo lipoprotein E. GSK-3β = glycogen synthase kinase-3β. GSK-3β ratio = total GSK-3β/Ser9-GSK-3β.
P < 0.05 versus the T2DM-nMCI group.
Fig. 2Six ApoE genotypes detected in this study.
We detected six ApoE genotypes: ε2ε2, ε3ε3, ε4ε4, ε2ε3, ε2ε4, and ε3ε4 in T2DM patients.
Fig. 3The differences of ApoE between T2DM-nMCI group and T2DM-MCI group in the training set and the validation set.
The ε3ε4 genotype in T2DM-MCI group was higher than that in T2DM-nMCI group, and the ε3ε3 genotype in T2DM-MCI group was lower than that in T2DM-nMCI. *P < 0.05 versus the T2DM-nMCI group.
Fig. 4The difference of GSK-3β expressions in serum between T2DM-nMCI group (n = 7) and T2DM-MCI group (n = 12).
The expressions of GSK-3β in serum of T2DM-MCI group were higher than those in T2DM-nMCI group *P < 0.05 versus the T2DM-nMCI group.
Fig. 5The differences of platelet GSK-3β activity between control group (n = 6), T2DM-nMCI group (n = 34) and T2DM-MCI group (n = 33).
T2DM-MCI group had higher GSK-3β activity than T2DM-nMCI group, and T2DM-nMCI group had higher GSK-3β activity than control group in the platelet.
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 versus the NC group or T2DM-nMCI group.
Fig. 6The comparison of GSK-3β expressions in the platelets of different participants by Western blot and Dot blot.
The results of Western blot analysis were in accordance with those of Dot blot.
Fig. 7The differences of platelet GSK-3β activity between T2DM-nMCI group and T2DM-MCI group by Western blot and Dot blot.
(A) The expressions of total GSK-3β and p-GSK-3β (ser9) in the platelet by Western blot; (B) the expressions of total GSK-3β and p-GSK-3β (ser9) in the platelet by Dot blot; (C) quantitative analysis of Western blot; (D) Quantitative analysis of Dot blot.
*P < 0.05 versus T2DM-nMCI group.
Fig. 8The differences of platelet rGSK-3β between T2DM-AD group (n = 15), T2DM-nMCI group (n = 15) and T2DM-MCI group (n = 15).
T2DM-AD group had higher rGSK-3β than T2DM-MCI group, and T2DM-MCI group had higher rGSK-3β than T2DM-nMCI group in the platelet.
Logistic regression models for MCI in T2DM patients.
| Variable | B | S.E. | Wald | Sig. | Exp(B) | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Age | 0.09 | 0.02 | 17.31 | < 0.001 | 1.09 | 1.05 | 1.14 |
| ApoE ε4 | 0.74 | 0.37 | 3.87 | 0.049 | 2.09 | 1.00 | 4.35 |
| Olfactory | 0.41 | 0.10 | 16.14 | < 0.001 | 1.51 | 1.24 | 1.85 |
| rGSK-3β | 2.38 | 0.45 | 28.19 | < 0.001 | 10.80 | 4.49 | 26.00 |
| Age | 0.06 | 0.02 | 10.02 | 0.002 | 1.06 | 1.02 | 1.10 |
| ApoE ε4 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 5.93 | 0.015 | 2.67 | 1.21 | 5.90 |
| Olfactory | 0.39 | 0.10 | 15.28 | < 0.001 | 1.47 | 1.21 | 1.79 |
| rGSK-3β | 1.97 | 0.31 | 40.82 | < 0.001 | 7.19 | 3.92 | 13.16 |
B = the estimated logit coefficient. S.E. = the standard error of the coefficient. Wald = B/S.E. Sig. = the significance level of the coefficient. Exp(B) = the odds ratio of the individual coefficient. CI = confidence interval. ApoE = Apo lipoprotein E. GSK-3β = glycogen synthase kinase-3β. GSK-3β ratio = total GSK-3β/Ser9-GSK-3β.
Diagnostic efficacy of single biomarker in the training set and the validation set.
| Variables | Cutoff | Specificity | Sensitivity | AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 65.50 | 0.85 | 0.49 | 0.68 (0.61,0.75) | 0.76 |
| HbA1c | 7.15 | 0.62 | 0.42 | 0.49 (0.42,0.56) | 0.57 |
| Olfactory | 6.75 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.72 (0.66,0.79) | 0.66 |
| ApoE ε2 | – | 0.88 | 0.12 | – | 0.69 |
| ApoE ε3 | – | 0.03 | 0.94 | – | 0.26 |
| ApoE ε4 | – | 0.87 | 0.27 | – | 0.72 |
| tGSK3β | 1.03 | 0.73 | 0.39 | 0.50 (0.42,0.58) | 0.64 |
| pS9GSK3β | 0.40 | 0.89 | 0.33 | 0.59 (0.52,0.67) | 0.75 |
| rGSK3β | 1.05 | 0.90 | 0.48 | 0.69 (0.62,0.76) | 0.79 |
| Age | 68.50 | 0.80 | 0.49 | 0.65 (0.59,0.72) | 0.70 |
| HbA1c | 7.05 | 0.43 | 0.74 | 0.57 (0.51,0.64) | 0.53 |
| Olfactory | 7.75 | 0.77 | 0.64 | 0.72 (0.66,0.79) | 0.73 |
| ApoE ε2 | – | 0.76 | 0.21 | – | 0.58 |
| ApoE ε3 | – | 0.07 | 0.87 | – | 0.34 |
| ApoE ε4 | – | 0.90 | 0.25 | – | 0.68 |
| tGSK3β | 1.29 | 0.69 | 0.61 | 0.65 (0.59,0.72) | 0.66 |
| pS9GSK3β | 0.49 | 0.83 | 0.36 | 0.59 (0.52,0.66) | 0.67 |
| rGSK3β | 1.29 | 0.91 | 0.55 | 0.81 (0.76,0.86) | 0.79 |
ROC = receiver operating characteristics. AUC = the area under the curve. CI = confidence interval. GSK3β = glycogen synthase kinase-3β, tGSK3β = total GSK3β, pS9GSK3β = serine-9 phosphorylated pS9GSK3β, rGSK3β = ratio of tGSK3β/pS9GSK3β.
Diagnostic efficacy of the combined biomarkers.
| Variables | Specificity | Sensitivity | AUC (95% CI) | Accuracy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory | 0.85 | 0.54 | 0.72 (0.65,0.79) | 0.78 |
| ApoE ε4 + rGSK3β | 0.83 | 0.58 | 0.72 (0.65,0.79) | 0.77 |
| ApoE ε4 + age | 0.76 | 0.65 | 0.71 (0.64,0.78) | 0.73 |
| rGSK3β + age | 0.72 | 0.69 | 0.77 (0.71,0.83) | 0.71 |
| Olfactory + age | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.78 (0.72,0.83) | 0.75 |
| rGSK3β + olfactory | 0.78 | 0.73 | 0.79 (0.73,0.85) | 0.77 |
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory + rGSK3β | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.79 (0.73,0.85) | 0.74 |
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory + age | 0.71 | 0.74 | 0.77 (0.72,0.83) | 0.72 |
| ApoE ε4 + rGSK3β + age | 0.78 | 0.66 | 0.78 (0.72,0.84) | 0.75 |
| Olfactory + rGSK3β + age | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.82 (0.77,0.87) | 0.78 |
| rGSK3β + olfactory + ApoE ε4 + age | 0.91 | 0.58 | 0.82 (0.76,0.87) | 0.83 |
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory | 0.80 | 0.59 | 0.73 (0.67,0.79) | 0.73 |
| ApoE ε4 + rGSK3β | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.83 (0.78,0.88) | 0.80 |
| ApoE ε4 + age | 0.74 | 0.64 | 0.69 (0.62,0.75) | 0.70 |
| rGSK3β + age | 0.86 | 0.70 | 0.83 (0.78,0.88) | 0.81 |
| Olfactory + age | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.77 (0.71,0.82) | 0.74 |
| rGSK3β + olfactory | 0.90 | 0.60 | 0.84 (0.79,0.88) | 0.80 |
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory + rGSK3β | 0.86 | 0.69 | 0.85 (0.80,0.89) | 0.80 |
| ApoE ε4 + olfactory + age | 0.69 | 0.76 | 0.78 (0.72,0.83) | 0.71 |
| ApoE ε4 + rGSK3β + age | 0.79 | 0.78 | 0.84 (0.79,0.89) | 0.79 |
| Olfactory + rGSK3β + age | 0.87 | 0.67 | 0.86 (0.81,0.90) | 0.80 |
| rGSK3β + olfactory + ApoE ε4 + age | 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.86 (0.82,0.91) | 0.81 |
AUC = the area under the curve. CI = confidence interval.
Fig. 9ROC (receiver operating curves) show diagnostic efficacy of the combined biomarkers (age, ApoE ε4 gene, olfactory threshold and GSK-3β ratio) in the training set and the confirmation in the validation set.