| Literature DB >> 28165405 |
Robert M Badeau1,2, Miikka-Juhani Honka3, Marco Bucci4, Patricia Iozzo5,6, Johan G Eriksson7,8,9,10, Pirjo Nuutila11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity among pregnant women is common, and their offspring are predisposed to obesity, insulin resistance, and diabetes. The circulating metabolites that are related to insulin resistance and are associated with this decreased tissue-specific uptake are unknown. Here, we assessed metabolite profiles in elderly women who were either female offspring from obese mothers (OOM) or offspring of lean mothers (OLM). Metabolic changes were tested for associations with metrics for insulin resistance.Entities:
Keywords: 22:6 docosahexaenoic acid; insulin-dependent skeletal muscle glucose uptake; offspring of lean mothers; offspring of obese mothers; ω-3 fatty acids
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28165405 PMCID: PMC5331541 DOI: 10.3390/nu9020110
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of study participants and of their mothers.
| OLM | OOM | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 20 | 17 |
| Age | 72 ± 2.6 | 71 ± 3.6 |
| BMI (Mothers) | 22.9 ± 1.4 | 29.7 * ± 1.6 |
| BMI (Offspring) | 26.6 ± 4.8 | 27.9 ± 4.57 |
| Fasting plasma glucose (mmol/L) | 5.99 ± 0.69 | 5.94 ± 0.77 |
| Fasting insulin (mU/L) | 9.60 ± 6.4 | 9.47 ± 4.59 |
Mean ± standard deviation (SD) are presented. Lean mothers (OLM) are the offspring of lean mothers and obese mothers (OOM) are the offspring of obese mothers. Mass index (BMI) is body to mass index expressed as height/km2. BMI of mothers is presented to define how obese mothers were at time of birth. Remaining values are only for their offspring. * p < 0.001. These data were published in [11], but the BMI values of the mothers have not been published.
Circulating metabolites that are associated with insulin resistance and glucose metabolism.
| OOM | OLM | |
|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD |
| Total fatty acids | 9.517 ± 1.500 | 9.353 ± 1.089 |
| Docosahexaenoic acid | 0.132 ± 0.043 | 0.155 ± 0.036 |
| 18:2, linoleic acid | 2.561 ± 0.420 | 2.403 ± 0.327 |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 0.468 ± 0.152 | 0.536 * ± 0.100 |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 3.218 ± 0.492 | 3.121 ± 0.355 |
| Saturated fatty acids | 3.476 ± 0.554 | 3.373 ± 0.382 |
| DHA/FA | 1.376 ± 0.300 | 1.673 * ± 0.391 |
| Alanine | 0.364 ± 0.066 | 0.348 ± 0.035 |
| Glutamine | 0.506 ± 0.048 | 0.487 ± 0.047 |
| Histidine | 0.057 ± 0.009 | 0.055 ± 0.008 |
| Isoleucine | 0.045 ± 0.011 | 0.042 ± 0.011 |
| Leucine | 0.055 ± 0.012 | 0.055 ± 0.012 |
| Valine | 0.162 ± 0.032 | 0.164 ± 0.033 |
| Phenylalanine | 0.061 ± 0.008 | 0.062 ± 0.005 |
| 3-hydroxybutyrate | 0.198 ± 0.144 | 0.183 ± 0.129 |
| a1-acid glycoprotein | 1.114 ± 0.110 | 1.082 ± 0.114 |
Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Metabolites are expressed in mmol/L except where indicated otherwise. DHA/FA represents the docosahexaenoic acid to total fatty acid ratio. * p < 0.05. OOM n = 15; OLM n = 20. DHA/FA: Ratio of 22:6 docosahexaenoic acid to total fatty acids.
Figure 1Differences in circulating docosahexaenoic acid to total fatty acid ratio (DHA/FA) percentages and ω-3 FA concentrations in female offspring from lean mothers (OLM) or female offspring from obese mothers (OOM). (A) Circulating DHA/FA percentages. * p = 0.015 between OLM and OOM groups; (B) Circulating ω-3 FA concentrations (FAw3). * p = 0.037 between OLM and OOM groups. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) are shown.
Figure 2Correlations of DHA/FA ratios (percentages) to skeletal muscle glucose uptake between OOM and OLM groups. (A) In the whole group, Spearman’s rho value was 0.444 (p = 0.007). n = 36; (B) Spearman’s rho value for OLM group was 0.496 (p = 0.031) and for OOM group was −0.165. OLM: n = 19; OOM: n = 16.
Figure 3Correlations of DHA/FA ratios (percentages) to whole-body glucose uptake or, metabolizable glucose value derived from hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp technique (M-value) between OOM and OLM groups. (A) Whole group. Spearman’s rho value was 0.396 (p = 0.017), n = 36; (B) Spearman’s rho value for OLM group was 0.457 (p = 0.050) and for OOM group was −0.124. OLM n = 19; OOM n = 16.