| Literature DB >> 28674557 |
Liene Bervoets1, Guy Massa1,2, Wanda Guedens3, Evelyne Louis1, Jean-Paul Noben4, Peter Adriaensens3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is one of the most common pediatric diseases and its incidence is rising in many countries. Recently, it has been shown that metabolites other than glucose play an important role in insulin deficiency and the development of diabetes. The aim of our study was to look for discriminating variation in the concentrations of small-molecule metabolites in the plasma of T1DM children as compared to non-diabetic matched controls using proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H-NMR)-based metabolomics.Entities:
Keywords: 1H-NMR spectroscopy; Metabolomics; Pediatrics; Type 1 diabetes
Year: 2017 PMID: 28674557 PMCID: PMC5485735 DOI: 10.1186/s13098-017-0246-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr ISSN: 1758-5996 Impact factor: 3.320
Subject characteristics
| Subject alias | Age | Gender | Tanner stage | Height (in cm) | Weight (in kg) | BMI | BMI-SDS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1DM patients | |||||||
| 1 | 17.2 | 1 | 5 | 167.0 | 54.0 | 19.4 | −0.38 |
| 2 | 15.0 | 0 | 5 | 159.0 | 58.0 | 22.9 | 1.01 |
| 3 | 11.4 | 1 | 2 | 152.0 | 37.0 | 16.0 | −0.52 |
| 4 | 10.0 | 0 | 1 | 148.0 | 34.5 | 15.8 | −0.31 |
| 5 | 8.7 | 0 | 1 | 140.0 | 33.2 | 16.9 | 0.59 |
| 6 | 11.8 | 1 | 2 | 149.0 | 40.5 | 18.2 | 0.37 |
| 7 | 10.1 | 1 | 1 | 139.5 | 30.0 | 15.4 | −0.53 |
| Controls | |||||||
| 1 | 15.0 | 1 | 5 | 172.8 | 58.9 | 19.7 | 0.23 |
| 2 | 9.9 | 1 | 1 | 139.0 | 30.3 | 15.7 | −0.38 |
| 3 | 11.6 | 1 | 1 | 147.0 | 42.2 | 19.5 | 0.92 |
| 4 | 12.6 | 0 | 2 | 158.7 | 40.9 | 16.2 | −0.81 |
| 5 | 12.5 | 0 | 3 | 151.9 | 41.0 | 17.8 | −0.11 |
| 6 | 17.8 | 0 | 5 | 168.4 | 60.1 | 21.2 | 0.14 |
| 7 | 15.2 | 1 | 4 | 179.1 | 64.1 | 20.0 | 0.32 |
No significant differences were found between T1DM and control group for age, gender, Tanner stage (pubertal status), height, weight, BMI and BMI-SDS
T1DM type 1 diabetes, BMI body mass index, BMI-SDS body mass index standard deviation score
Fig. 1PCA score plot obtained for T1DM patients (filled triangle) and healthy controls (circle). Each participant is represented by its metabolic profile and visualized as a single symbol of which the location is determined by the contributions of the 110 variables in the 1H-NMR spectrum. The PCA score plot shows the first principal component (PC1: 69.4%), explaining the largest variance within the dataset, versus the second principal component (PC2: 12.6%) that explains the second largest variance
Fig. 2OPLS-DA score plot (a) and S-line plot (b) obtained for T1DM patients (filled triangle) and healthy controls (circle). Each participant is represented by its metabolic profile and visualized as a single symbol of which the location is determined by the contributions of the 110 variables in the 1H-NMR spectrum. The OPLS-DA score plot shows the first predictive component (t[1]P: 51.8%), explaining the variation between the groups, versus the first orthogonal component (t[1]O: 24.0%) that explains the variation within the groups. The OPLS-DA S-line plot visualizes differences between T1DM patients (negative) and controls (positive). The left y-axis represents p(ctr)[1], the covariance between a variable and the classification score. It indicates if an increase or decrease of a variable is correlated to the classification score. The magnitude of the covariance is however difficult to interpret since covariance is scale dependent. This means that a high value for the covariance does not necessary imply a strong correlation, as the covariance is also influenced by the intensity of the signal with respect to the noise level. Therefore this measure will likely indicate variables with large signal intensities. The right y-axis shows p(corr)[1], the correlation coefficient between a variable and the classification score (i.e. the normalized covariance). It gives a linear indication of the strength of the correlation. As the correlation is independent of the intensity of the variable, it will be a better measure for the reliability of the variable in the classification process. In b, the red color stands for the highest absolute value of the correlation coefficient. Strongly discriminating variables have a large intensity and large reliability
Plasma variables that significantly differ between T1DM and control subjects by multivariate statistics
| VAR | Spectral range (ppm) | Assigned metabolite | Model based on all 110 VARs (including glucose related VARs) | Model based on 95 VARs (excluding glucose related VARs) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p(corr)[1] | VIP ± cvSE | p(corr)[1] | VIP ± cvSE | |||
| 18 | 5.4300–5.2752 | – | 0.890 | 2.07 ± 0.71 | 0.787 | 2.77 ± 0.82 |
| 24 | 4.4100–4.3159 | C1
| 0.856 | 0.89 ± 0.47 | 0.740 | 1.19 ± 0.63 |
| 34 | 4.0310–4.0136 |
| 0.809 | 0.48 ± 0.30 | 0.743 | 0.65 ± 0.40 |
| 35 | 4.0136–4.0010 |
| 0.715 | 0.43 ± 0.26 | 0.669 | 0.57 ± 0.38 |
| 38 | 3.9590–3.8330 |
| −0.837 | 3.56 ± 0.24 | ||
| 41 | 3.7956–3.7820 |
| −0.815 | 0.83 ± 0.24 | ||
| 42 | 3.7820–3.7550 |
| −0.861 | 2.19 ± 0.12 | ||
| 43 | 3.7550–3.7390 |
| −0.825 | 1.66 ± 0.14 | ||
| 44 | 3.7390–3.7141 |
| −0.782 | 1.42 ± 0.19 | ||
| 51 | 3.5914–3.5649 |
| −0.901 | 1.44 ± 0.27 | ||
| 52 | 3.5649–3.5510 |
| −0.828 | 1.04 ± 0.19 | ||
| 54 | 3.5360–3.3980 |
| −0.836 | 4.63 ± 0.54 | ||
| 55 | 3.3980–3.3765 |
| 0.721 | 0.81 ± 0.28 | 0.870 | 1.08 ± 0.35 |
| 63 | 3.1090–3.0860 |
| 0.754 | 0.57 ± 0.37 | 0.701 | 0.77 ± 0.54 |
| 91 | 2.1230–1.9720 | –C | 0.752 | 2.17 ± 0.44 | 0.734 | 2.91 ± 0.65 |
| 100 | 1.3450–1.2458 | CH3–(C | 0.747 | 4.04 ± 1.52 | 0.728 | 5.41 ± 1.75 |
| 110 | 0.9660–0.8000 | C | 0.898 | 3.14 ± 0.73 | 0.735 | 4.21 ± 1.03 |
cvSE standard error of cross-validation, p(corr)[1] correlation scaled loading, VAR variable, VIP variable influence on projection
Plasma variables that significantly differ between T1DM and control subjects by univariate statistics
| VAR | Spectral range (ppm) | Assigned metabolite | Relative concentration | Increased/decreased in T1DM | p value* | %-change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1DM | Controls | ||||||
| 18 | 5.4300–5.2752 | – | 21.95 ± 3.63 | 30.95 ± 4.00 | ↓ | 0.001 | −29.1 |
| 24 | 4.4100–4.3159 | C1
| 3.28 ± 1.16 | 5.09 ± 1.16 | ↓ | 0.005 | −35.6 |
| 34 | 4.0310–4.0136 |
| 0.70 ± 0.26 | 1.21 ± 0.22 | ↓ | 0.003 | −42.1 |
| 35 | 4.0136–4.0010 |
| 0.84 ± 0.28 | 1.29 ± 0.23 | ↓ | 0.008 | −34.9 |
| 38 | 3.9590–3.8330 |
| 91.99 ± 16.9 | 64.44 ± 6.58 | ↑ | 0.004 | 42.8 |
| 41 | 3.7956–3.7820 |
| 7.62 ± 0.60 | 6.18 ± 0.60 | ↑ | <0.001 | 23.3 |
| 42 | 3.7820–3.7550 |
| 30.58 ± 5.63 | 20.56 ± 1.95 | ↑ | 0.003 | 48.7 |
| 43 | 3.7550–3.7390 |
| 17.92 ± 3.83 | 11.85 ± 1.35 | ↑ | 0.005 | 51.2 |
| 44 | 3.7390–3.7141 |
| 17.76 ± 3.24 | 13.05 ± 1.49 | ↑ | 0.007 | 36.1 |
| 51 | 3.5914–3.5649 |
| 14.45 ± 2.19 | 10.20 ± 1.06 | ↑ | 0.002 | 41.7 |
| 52 | 3.5649–3.5510 |
| 5.84 ± 1.10 | 3.65 ± 0.50 | ↑ | 0.002 | 60.0 |
| 54 | 3.5360–3.3980 |
| 116.37 ± 30.40 | 69.27 ± 8.54 | ↑ | 0.005 | 68.0 |
| 55 | 3.3980–3.3765 |
| 0.70 ± 0.32 | 1.94 ± 0.41 | ↓ | <0.001 | −63.9 |
| 63 | 3.1090–3.0860 |
| 2.28 ± 0.47 | 3.05 ± 0.39 | ↓ | 0.006 | −25.2 |
| 91 | 2.1230–1.9720 | –C | 53.13 ± 7.19 | 64.03 ± 3.76 | ↓ | 0.007 | −17.0 |
| 100 | 1.3450–1.2458 | CH3–(C | 117.69 ± 17.62 | 155.40 ± 22.01 | ↓ | 0.004 | −24.3 |
| 110 | 0.9660–0.8000 | C | 89.10 ± 14.79 | 111.75 ± 7.83 | ↓ | 0.006 | −20.3 |
* Benjamini–Hochberg adjusted p value, calculated using the independent samples t test. %-change is the increase (+) or decrease (−) of the mean in the T1DM group with respect to the control group
VAR variable