| Literature DB >> 28346471 |
Michael F La Fountaine1,2,3,4, Christopher M Cirnigliaro1, Steven C Kirshblum5,6, Cristin McKenna5,6, William A Bauman1,2,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interruption of sympathetic innervation to the liver and visceral adipose tissue (VAT) in animal models has been reported to reduce VAT lipolysis and hepatic secretion of very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) and concentrations of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein particles. Whether functional impairment of sympathetic nervous system (SNS) innervation to tissues of the abdominal cavity reduce circulating concentrations of triglyceride (TG) and VLDL particles (VLDL-P) was tested in men with spinal cord injury (SCI).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28346471 PMCID: PMC5367791 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173934
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of study cohorts.
| AB | ↓ T5 | ↑ T4 | p-value | Post-Hoc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | 53 | 48 | 55 | - | |
| Age (yrs) | 40.1 (11.2) | 48.4 (13.0) | 45.7 (11.1) | <0.01 | 1,2 |
| Height (m) | 1.74 (0.08) | 1.77 (0.07) | 1.79 (0.08) | <0.01 | 2 |
| Weight (kg) | 85.9 (18.8) | 88.1 (19.2) | 83.2 (19.8) | NS | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 28.3 (5.2) | 27.9 (4.9) | 25.8 (4.9) | <0.05 | 2 |
| Waist Circumference (cm) | 92.2 (13.7) | 100.7 (14.1) | 100.0 (16.5) | <0.01 | 1,2 |
| Total Body Fat (kg) | 24.5 (12.7) | 32.6 (11.6) | 30.7 (12.6) | <0.01 | 1, 2 |
| Android Fat Volume (cm3) | 2343 (229) | 2866 (240) | 2924 (229) | NS | |
| Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Volume (cm3) | 1247 (184) | 862 (1100) | 929 (992) | NS | |
| Visceral Adipose Tissue Volume (cm3) | 1107 (969) | 2101 (1155) | 1983 (1301) | <0.0001 | 1, 2 |
| AIS A / B / C (n) | - | 31 / 7 / 10 | 29 / 10 / 16 | NS | |
| DOI (yrs) | - | 15.4 (11.0) | 20.0 (12.7) | NS | |
| Smokers (n) | 7 | 7 | 3 | NS | |
| Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHg) | 118 (8) | 122 (26) | 98 (13) | <0.0001 | 1, 3 |
| 10-Year Framingham Risk (%) | 4.2 (2.5) | 7.4 (6.1) | 4.9 (3.6) | <0.001 | 1, 2 |
Data are expressed as group mean (SD). AB = able-bodied; BMI = body mass index; AIS = American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale; DOI = duration of injury. P-values represent significant group main effects. Significant comparisons from post-hoc analyses: 1AB v. ↓T5 = p<0.05; 2AB v. ↑ T4 = p<0.05; 3↓T5 v. ↑ T4 = p<0.05
Unadjusted fasting blood and lipid profiles by group.
| AB | ↓T5 | ↑ T4 | p-value | Post-Hoc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose (mmol/l) | 5.0 (4.7, 5.2) | 4.7 (4.5, 5.0) | 4.3 (4.1, 4.6) | <0.001 | 1 |
| Insulin (mU/ml) | 8.3 (5.9, 10.8) | 12.5 (9.9, 15.0) | 11.8 (9.3, 14.2) | <0.05 | |
| HOMA-IR | 1.09 (0.80, 1.39) | 1.54 (1.23, 1.86) | 1.47 (1.18, 1.77) | 0.08 | |
| Total Cholesterol (mg/dl) | 183 (172, 194) | 185 (174, 197) | 167 (156, 178) | 0.06 | |
| Triglycerides (mg/dl) | 101 (83, 119) | 150 (131, 168) | 112 (95, 130) | <0.001 | 1, 2 |
| HDL-C (mg/dl) | 50 (48, 53) | 42 (39, 45) | 42 (39, 45) | <0.0001 | 1, 3 |
| LDL-C (mg/dl) | 112 (103, 120) | 113 (104, 122) | 102 (93, 111) | NS | |
| Apolipoprotein A1 (mg/dl) | 143 (137, (149) | 127 (120, 133) | 122 (112, 125) | <0.0001 | 1, 3 |
| Apolipoprotein B (mg/dl) | 87 (80, 94) | 99 (91, 106) | 82 (75, 89) | <0.01 | 2 |
| Total VLDL-P (μmol/l) | 58.0 (50.1, 65.8) | 74.3 (66.1, 82.6) | 55.1 (47.7, 62.8) | <0.01 | 2, 3 |
| Large VLDL-P (μmol/l) | 3.4 (2.1, 4.6) | 6.0 (4.6, 7.4) | 4.5 (3.2, 5.8) | <0.05 | 3 |
| Small VLDL-P (μmol/l) | 32.1 (27.4, 36.8) | 39.6 (34.6, 45.5) | 30.8 (26.1, 35.5) | <0.05 | 2 |
| VLDL-P Size (nm) | 46 (44, 48) | 50 (48, 52) | 49 (47, 51) | <0.05 |
Data are expressed as group mean (95% CI). AB = able-bodied; HOMA-IR = homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; NMR = nuclear magnetic resonance; VLDL: very low density lipoprotein; P = particle. P-values represent significant group main effects. Significant comparisons from post-hoc analyses: 1AB v. ↑T4 = p<0.05; 2↑T4 v. ↓T5 = p<0.05; 3AB v. ↓T5 = p<0.05.
Fig 1Distribution of adjusted triglyceride-rich lipoproteins by group.
Data are presented as estimated marginal means by group. 95% CI for groups (i.e., AB, ↑T4, ↓T5) are provided for Adjusted TG (A: 94, 127; 100, 132; 126, 162), Adjusted Total VLDL-P (B: 50, 65; 51, 65; 63, 79), Adjusted Large VLDL-P (C: 2.4, 4.9; 3.7, 6.1; 4.0, 6.5), and Adjusted Small VLDL-P (C: 25, 35; 27, 36; 35, 45), respectively. Significant Bonferoni post-hoc test comparisons for group differences: 1p<0.05, ↑T4 vs. ↓T5; 2p = 0.07, AB vs. ↓T5; 3p<0.05, AB vs. ↓T5.
Fig 2Relationships between HOMA-IR and VAT volume and unadjusted TG concentration and number of large VLDL-P, respectively by group.
In the ↓T5 group, the slope of the regression line significantly deviated from zero (p<0.05) in the respective relationships between unadjusted TG concentration and VAT volume (A) and HOMA-IR (B) and, for unadjusted Lg VLDL-P and VAT volume (C) and HOMA-IR (D), but not for the other groups. Similarly, the slope of the regression line for the ↓T5 group was significantly different (p<0.05) than the other groups for both unadjusted TG concentration models (A, B).
Regression equations:
AB: TG = 89.81+0.01(VATvol)
↑T4: TG = 101.10+0.006(VATvol)
↓T5: TG = 107.02+0.25(VATvol); r2: 0.15, p<0.05
AB: TG = 86.33+13.31(HOMA-IR)
↑T4: TG = 98.14+7.01(HOMA-IR)
↓T5: TG = 118.62+19.92(HOMA-IR); r2: 0.10, p<0.05
AB: LgVLDL-P = 2.62+0.001(VATvol)
↑T4: LgVLDL-P = 3.15+0.001(VATvol)
↓T5: LgVLDL-P = 2.04+0.002(VATvol); r2: 0.22, p<0.05
AB: LgVLDL-P = 2.15+1.04(HOMA-IR)
↑T4: LgVLDL-P = 3.32+0.48(HOMA-IR)
↓T5: LgVLDL-P = 2.99+1.81(HOMA-IR); r2: 0.20, p<0.05