| Literature DB >> 28316372 |
Rafael Nepomuceno1, Bárbara Scoralick Villela1, Sâmia Cruz Tfaile Corbi1, Alliny De Souza Bastos2, Raquel Alves Dos Santos3, Catarina Satie Takahashi4, Silvana Regina Perez Orrico2, Raquel Mantuaneli Scarel-Caminaga1.
Abstract
A high percentage of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) patients are also affected by dyslipidemia and chronic periodontitis (CP), but no studies have determined the gene expression in patients that are simultaneously affected by all three diseases. We investigated the systemic expression of immune-related genes in T2D, dyslipidemia, and CP patients. One hundred and fifty patients were separated into five groups containing 30 individuals each: (G1) poorly controlled T2D with dyslipidemia and CP; (G2) well-controlled T2D with dyslipidemia and CP; (G3) normoglycemic individuals with dyslipidemia and CP; (G4) healthy individuals with CP; (G5) systemic and periodontally healthy individuals. Blood analyses of lipid and glycemic profiles were carried out. The expression of genes, including IL10, JAK1, STAT3, SOCS3, IP10, ICAM1, IFNA, IFNG, STAT1, and IRF1, was investigated by RT-qPCR. Patients with dyslipidemia demonstrated statistically higher expression of the IL10 and IFNA genes, while IFNG, IP10, IRF1, JAK1, and STAT3 were lower in comparison with nondyslipidemic patients. Anti-inflammatory genes, such as IL10, positively correlated with parameters of glucose, lipid, and periodontal profiles, while proinflammatory genes, such as IFNG, were negatively correlated with these parameters. We conclude that dyslipidemia appears to be the primary disease that is associated with gene expression of immune-related genes, while parameters of T2D and CP were correlated with the expression of these important immune genes.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28316372 PMCID: PMC5337859 DOI: 10.1155/2017/1491405
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mediators Inflamm ISSN: 0962-9351 Impact factor: 4.711
Periodontal parameters of the sample (mean ± SD).
| Parameters | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of teeth | 22.3 (±4.2)a | 21.6 (±4.5)a | 23.2 (±3.8)a | 24.3 (±3.1)a | 27.1 (±1.8) |
| Percentage of sites with visible plaque | 76.5 (±17.4)a,b | 69.8 (±13.0)a | 70.1 (±15.7)a | 60.8 (±17.4)a | 14.8 (±6.2) |
| Percentage of sites with marginal bleeding | 60.9 (±15.2)a,b,c | 46.9 (±15.9)a | 40.4 (±14.8)a | 41.3 (±12.9)a | 8.7 (±4.8) |
| Percentage of sites with bleeding on probing | 69.3 (±12.8)a,b,c,d | 53.9 (±13.8)a | 53.0 (±13.7)a | 51.4 (±13.2)a | 12.7 (±5.6) |
| Mean of the probing depth (mm) | 4.1 (±0.5)a,b,c,d | 3.7 (±0.6)a | 3.4 (±0.5)a | 3.7 (±0.4)a | 2.1 (±0.2) |
| Percentage of sites with probing depth ≤ 3 mm | 43.3 (±14.8)a,c,d | 57.0 (±15.0)a | 61.9 (±14.0)a | 53.3 (±12.5)a | 98.8 (±1.5) |
| Percentage of sites with probing depth = 4-5 mm | 31.9 (±11.6)a,b | 31.0 (±11.0)a,b | 31.0 (±10.6)a,b | 41.0 (±10.0)a | 1.2 (±1.5) |
| Percentage of sites with probing depth ≥ 6 mm | 24.8 (±15.9)a,b,c | 12.0 (±10.8)a | 7.0 (±10.6)a | 5.7 (±5.9)a | 0.0 (±0.0) |
| Mean of the attachment loss (mm) | 4.4 (±0.7)a,b,c,d | 3.9 (±0.7)a | 3.6 (±0.5)a | 3.8 (±0.4)a | 2.2 (±0.2) |
| Percentage of sites with attachment loss ≤ 2 mm | 13.1 (±8.8)a | 16.5 (±15.1)a | 24.8 (±16.2)a,b | 10.3 (±10.0)a | 64.5 (±13.9) |
| Percentage of sites with attachment loss = 3-4 mm | 39.8 (±15.3)b,c | 48.8 (±14.2)a,b | 51.6 (±10.7)a | 61.3 (±10.0)a,c | 35.5 (±13.9) |
| Percentage of sites with attachment loss ≥ 5 mm | 47.1 (±16.2)a,b,c,d | 34.7 (±17.6)a | 23.8 (±14.0)a | 28.4 (±10.5)a | 0.0 (±0.0) |
| Number of sites with suppuration | 6.8 (±7.0)a,b,c,d | 4.0 (±3.3)a | 2.0 (±3.0) | 2.0 (±3.7) | 0.0 (±0.0) |
aSignificant P value in relation to group 5; bsignificant P value in relation to group 4; csignificant P value in relation to group 3; dsignificant P value in relation to group 2. Comparisons between all groups for nonnormally distributed variables were performed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, and Dunn test was used to correct for multiple comparisons. For normally distributed variables, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with Holm–Sidak multiple comparison test was used.
Characteristics of the sample: demographic, physical, biochemical, and diabetic data (mean ± SD).
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | Group 4 | Group 5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender (F/M) | 18/12 | 20/10 | 17/13 | 19/11 | 18/12 |
| Age (mean SD) | 48.0 (±7.6)a | 50.3 (±6.7)a | 49.0 (±7.5)a | 45.9 (±5.9)a | 39.3 (±3.6) |
| BMI (m/Kg2) | 30.5 (±5.2)a | 31.4 (±4.1)a,b | 28.4 (±3.8) | 27.3 (±6.4) | 24.5 (±3.5) |
| Waist-to-hip ratio (cm) | 1.0 (±0.1)a,b | 1.0 (±0.1)a,b | 0.9 (±0.1)a | 0.9 (±0.1)a | 0.8 (±0.07) |
| Abdominal circumference (cm) | 104.3 (±14.6)a | 109.3 (±10.8)a,b,c | 98.1 (±9.9) | 98.2 (±16.9) | 87.5 (±10.6) |
| Fasting glucose (mg/dl) | 226.6 (±74.2)a,b,c,d | 137.5 (±41.4)a,b,c | 90.0 (±6.4) | 90.8 (±7.3) | 85.9 (±6.5) |
| HbA1c (%) | 10.4 (±1.9)a,b,c,d | 6.6 (±0.9)a,b,c | 5.4 (±0.6) | 5.1 (±0.6) | 5.4 (±0.21) |
| Insulin (U/L) | 19.7 (±20.9)a | 21.1 (±21.5)a,b | 12.6 (±8.5) | 11.1 (±12.7) | 7.1 (±4.3) |
| HOMA | 12.7 (±15.9)a,b,c | 6.8 (±5.2)a,b,c | 2.6 (±1.8) | 2.9 (±3.5) | 1.6 (±1.0) |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dl) | 242.7 (±37.8)a,b | 243.4 (±42.9)a,b | 246.1 (±42.3)a,b | 171.6 (±18.5) | 180.3 (±21.5) |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dl) | 44.8 (±9.5) | 46.1 (±10.5) | 50.7 (±11.1) | 48.4 (±12.6) | 49.3 (±10.1) |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dl) | 153.4 (±37.0)a,b | 147.3 (±44.3)a,b | 156.4 (±44.1)a,b | 103.8 (±17.4) | 113.5 (±18.1) |
| Triglycerides (mg/dl) | 216.9 (±94.6)a,b | 249.8 (±104.1)a,b | 194.1 (±80.6)a,b | 93.9 (±35.9) | 87.4 (±27.6) |
aSignificant P value in relation to group 5; bsignificant P value in relation to group 4; csignificant P value in relation to group 3; dsignificant P value in relation to group 2. Comparisons between all groups for nonnormally distributed variables were performed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, and Dunn test was used to correct for multiple comparisons. For normally distributed variables, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with Holm–Sidak multiple comparison test was used.
Figure 1Signaling pathway of IL10 gene in groups G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. All values were normalized to GAPDH. Data represent the mean ± SD. #P ≤ 0.05 compared to G4 group; P ≤ 0.05 compared to group G5. Comparisons between all groups were performed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, and Dunn test was used to correct for multiple comparisons.
Figure 2Signaling pathway of IFNA and IFNG genes in groups G1, G2, G3, G4, and G5. All values were normalized to GAPDH. Data represent the mean ± SD. &P ≤ 0.05 compared to G2; @P ≤ 0.05 compared to G3; #P ≤ 0.05 compared to G4; P ≤ 0.05 compared to G5. Comparisons between all groups were performed by the Kruskal–Wallis test, and Dunn test was used to correct for multiple comparisons.
Adjusted correlation between gene expression and physical parameters and glycemic and lipid profiles.
| Physical parameters | Glycemic and lipid profiles | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BMI (m/kg2) | Waist-to-hip ratio | Waist circumference | Fasting glucose | HbA1c (%) | HOMA | Total cholesterol | LDL cholesterol | Triglycerides | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.13 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| −0.14 |
|
| 0.07 |
| 0.03 |
|
|
| −0.16 | −0.17 | −0.05 |
|
| −0.06 |
|
|
|
Spearman's correlation coefficients are shown (r; α = 5%) adjusted for age and gender. Significant correlations (P < 0.05) are marked: italic means positive significant correlation and bold means negative significant correlation.
Adjusted correlation of expressions between the investigated genes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1.00 | |||||||||||||||
|
| −0.15 | 1.00 | ||||||||||||||
|
| − |
| 1.00 | |||||||||||||
|
| − |
|
| 1.00 | ||||||||||||
|
| −0.13 |
|
|
| 1.00 | |||||||||||
|
| − |
|
|
|
| 1.00 | ||||||||||
|
| 0.08 |
|
| 0.08 |
|
| 1.00 | |||||||||
|
| − |
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.00 | ||||||||
|
|
|
| −0.06 | −0.17 |
| −0.02 |
| −0.13 | 1.00 | |||||||
|
| − | 0.13 |
|
|
|
| 0.04 |
| − | 1.00 | ||||||
|
| − | 0.07 |
|
|
|
| −0.03 |
| − |
| 1.00 | |||||
|
|
| 0.01 | − | − | 0.03 | − | 0.15 | − |
| − | − | 1.00 | ||||
|
|
| −0.10 | −0.15 | − | 0.05 | − | 0.10 | − |
| − | − |
| 1.00 | |||
|
|
| 0.06 | − | − | −0.02 | − | 0.13 | − |
| − | − |
|
| 1.00 | ||
|
|
| 0.13 | −0.14 | −0.07 | 0.09 | −0.14 |
| − |
| − | − |
|
|
| 1.00 | |
|
|
| 0.17 | −0.07 | −0.13 | 0.08 | −0.09 |
| − |
| −0.16 | − |
|
|
|
| 1.00 |
Spearman's correlation coefficients are shown (r; α = 5%) adjusted for age and gender. Significant correlations (P < 0.05) are marked: italic means positive significant correlation and bold means negative significant correlation.
Adjusted correlation between gene expression and periodontal parameters.
| Visible plaque | Marginal bleeding | BP | PPD ≤ 3 mm | PPD 4-5 mm | PPD ≥ 6 mm | CAL ≤ 2 mm | CAL 3-4 mm | CAL ≥ 5 mm | Suppuration | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| − | 0.16 |
| − | −0.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| − | −0.06 |
| − | −0.15 |
|
|
|
| − | − | − |
| − | − |
| 0.05 | − | − |
|
| − | − | − |
| −0.07 | − | 0.09 |
| − | −0.11 |
|
| − | − | − | 0.16 | −0.01 | − | 0.07 |
| − | −0.13 |
|
|
|
| 0.12 | −0.12 | −0.13 |
| −0.06 | −0.19 |
|
|
Spearman's correlation coefficients are shown (r; α = 5%) adjusted for age and gender. Significant correlations (P < 0.05) are marked: italic means positive significant correlation and bold means negative significant correlation. BP: bleeding on probing; PPD: periodontal pocket depth; CAL: clinical attachment loss.