Literature DB >> 28846666

Interleukin 6 (IL-6) and Tumor Necrosis Factor α (TNF-α) Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), Inflammation and Metabolism in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Inner Mongolia.

Jie Zhang1, Haiyi Chi2, Huiying Xiao3, Xiaoyan Tian3, Yilin Wang4, Xia Yun5, Yancheng Xu1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is common all over the world. GDM women are with inflammatory and metabolisms abnormalities. However, few studies have focused on the association of IL-65-72C/G and TNF-α -857C/T single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), inflammatory biomarkers, and metabolic indexes in women with GDM, especially in the Inner Mongolia population. The aim of this study was to investigate the associations of IL-65-72C/G and TNF-α -857C/T SNPs, and inflammation and metabolic biomarkers in women with GDM pregnancies. MATERIAL AND METHODS Blood samples and placentas from 140 women with GDM and 140 women with healthy pregnancies were collected. Matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time of flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF-MS) and MassARRAY-IPLEX were performed to analyze IL-65-72C/G and TNF-α -857C/T SNPs. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was performed to analyze inflammatory biomarkers and adipokines. RESULTS Distribution frequency of TNF-α -857CT (OR=3.316, 95% CI=1.092-8.304, p=0.025) in women with GDM pregnancies were obviously higher than that in women with healthy pregnancies. Women with GDM were of older maternal age, had higher BMI, were more nulliparous, and had T2DM and GDM history, compared to women with healthy pregnancies (p<0.05). Inflammatory biomarkers in serum (hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8, IL-6/IL-10 ratio) and placental (NF-κB, IL-6, IL-8, IL-6/IL-10 ratio, IL-1b, TNF-α) were significantly different (p<0.05) between women with GDM and women with healthy pregnancies. Differences were found for serum FBG, FINS, HOMA-IR, and HOMA-β, and placental IRS-1, IRS-2, leptin, adiponectin, visfatin, RBP-4, chemerin, nesfatin-1, FATP-4, EL, LPL, FABP-1, FABP-3, FABP-4, and FABP-5. CONCLUSIONS TNF-α -857C/T SNP, hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-6/IL-10 were associated with GDM in women from Inner Mongolia, as was serious inflammation and disordered lipid and glucose metabolisms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28846666      PMCID: PMC5584822          DOI: 10.12659/msm.903565

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Sci Monit        ISSN: 1234-1010


Background

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common endocrine and metabolic disease with different degrees of glucose and lipid metabolic disorders during pregnancy, causing danger to the mothers and the perinatal infants, and can even be life-threatening [1,2]. However, the pathogenesis of GDM is still unclear, and might be related to hormone level changes, insulin resistance (IR), obesity, a chronic inflammatory reaction, oxidative stress, genetics, insulin-secretion deficiency, immunity and so on [3]. Recently attention has focused on the relationship between inflammatory reaction and IR, indicating that inflammation is a critical factor in promoting IR. During pregnancy, the maternal tissues become insensitive to insulin resulting from changes due to placental lactogen and other hormones. For women with GDM, IR results in maternal hyperglycemia and stimulates fetal hyperinsulinemia [4]. IR and reduced secretory function of β cell are important pathological features of GDM. After giving birth, GDM in women disappears immediately. Risk factors, such as increased maternal age, previous occurrence of GDM, and family history of diabetes, are helpful for diagnosis of GDM [5]. In China, a universal screening program for GDM in women living in the six urban districts of Tianjin was carried out, with the results showing that the GDM prevalence was as low as 2.3% in 1998 [6]. However, there is scant research on the prevalence of GDM in the Chinese population, and in particular Inner Mongolia. In our study, we analyzed the expressions of IL-65–72C/G and TNF-α-857C/T SNPs in GDM patients from Inner Mongolia, as well as their relationship with glucose and lipid metabolism, in order to inform clinical diagnosis and prevention of GDM with information on related molecular mechanisms.

Material and Methods

Patients

Data were collected from 140 women with GDM pregnancies and 140 women with healthy pregnancies, who delivered in the Obstetric Department of Huhhot First Hospital from June of 2013 to June of 2015. All the women lived in Inner Mongolia (China) for more than 20 years, with routine ultrasonic examination and prenatal care. Informed consent was obtained from each participant and approved by the medical ethics committee of Huhhot First Hospital and Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. GDM pregnancies were diagnosed according to the criteria of Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline [7] and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The pregnant women, with gestational weeks of 24~28, were screened for GDM by one hour 50 g glucose challenge test (GCT). When the fasting glucose was higher than 92 mg/d/L but lower than 126 mg/d/L, GDM was diagnosed at any gestational age. Those pregnant women in early pregnancy, not meeting the diagnostic criteria for GDM, were asked to have oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) from the 24th and 28th gestational weeks [7].

Genomic DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

We collected 10 mL peripheral blood at 9: 00 in the morning, which was then store at −28°C for subsequent experiments. A sample of 2 mL of the blood was used for SNPs analysis. Genomic DNA in each sample was extracted and purified with genomic DNA extraction kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., Shanghai, China) according to the kit specification, and then stored at −78°C until PCR amplification. PCR primers were designed with Sequenom Assay Desigh 3.0 software and synthesized by Thermo Fisher. Primers are shown in Table 1. DNA samples were diluted quantitatively and then prepared for amplification. PCR amplification system is shown in Table 2, with the process in Table 3. After amplification, 0.3 U alkaline phosphatase was added to remove the remaining deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate (dNTP). Finally the PCR products were spotted into SpectroCHIP (Sequenom) with the automatic instrument. MALDI-TOF-MS (SpectroREADER, Sequenom) was used to detect the chips.
Table 1

Primers for amplification on IL-6–572C/G and TNF-α-857C/T.

Gene lociPrimersEndonuclease
IL-6–572C/GF: 5′-GGA GAC GCC TTG AAG TAA CTG C-3′AseI
R: 5′-GAG TTT CCT CTG ACT CCA TCG CAG-3′
TNF-α-857C/TF: 5′-AAG TCG AGT ATG ATG GGG ACC CCC CAT TAA-3′MbiI
R: 5′-AAG CTC TCA CTT CTC AGG GCC CCA GT-3′

IL-6 – interleukin-6; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; F – forward primer; R – reverse primer.

Table 2

PCR amplification system for IL-6–572C/G and TNF-α-857C/T.

IL-6–572C/G (μL)TNF-α-857C/T (μL)
DNA template52
Primers2F: 1
2R: 1
dNTP(1×)42
Taq polymerase (1×)0.40.5
PCR buffer (1×)55
Total5050

PCR – polymerase chain reaction; IL-6 – interleukin-6; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; dNTP – deoxyribonucleotide triphosphate.

Table 3

PCR amplification conditions for IL-6–572C/G and TNF-α-857C/T.

StepTemperature (°C)TimeCycle number
IL-6–572C/G
 Predegeneration94°C5 min
 Degeneration94°C45 s30 cycles
 Annealing61°C45 s
 Extension72°C45 s
 Extension terminal72°C10 min1 cycle
 Storage4°C→∞
TNF-α-857C/T
 Predegeneration94°C15 min35 cycles
 Degeneration94°C30 s
 Annealing57°C30 s
 Extension72°C30 s
 Extension terminal72°C3 min1 cycle
 Storage4°C→∞

PCR – polymerase chain reaction; IL-6 – interleukin-6; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α.

Metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers

High sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), fasting blood glucose (FBG), and fasting blood insulin (FINS) were detected by automatic biochemical analyzer (BioTek Instrument, Inc., Beijing, China). Homeostasis Model Assessment (HOMA) formula was used for calculating IR index (HOMA-IR) and islet β cell function index (HOMA-β). Serum Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) were determined by Bio-Plex 200 Systems with Bio-Plex ProTM Human Cytokine Assay kits (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., Shanghai, China).

Placental tissues

Fresh placental tissues were collected after delivery and fixed in 10% formalin (Solarbio Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing. China), and then finely ground with RIPA buffer (Thermo). Tissue residues were discarded after centrifuging. Tissue suspension was used for detecting placental indexes by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), including nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB), TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, leptin, adiponectin, visfatin, retinol-binding protein-4 (RBP-4), chemerin, nesfatin-1, insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1), IRS-2, fatty acid transport protein-4 (FATP-4), endothelial lipase (EL), low density lipoprotein (LPL), fatty acid binding protein-1 (FABP-1), FABP-3, FABP-4 and FABP-5. ELISA kits were obtained from TaKaRa Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Dalian, China), Beijing Wantai Biological Pharmacy Enterprise Co., Ltd. (China) and Shanghai Kehua Bio-Engineering Co., Ltd. (China).

Statistical analysis

All data were analyzed by SPSS 19.0 and shown as mean±standard deviations (X ±SD). Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was used for estimating allele frequencies. Comparisons of genotypes and allele frequencies between the patients and volunteers were analyzed by chi-square test. Binary logistic regression analysis was used for evaluating the association between SNPs of IL-6, TNF-α genotype, and allele frequencies with GDM. The characteristics were compared with Fisher’s exact test. T-test was used for comparisons on continuous variables. Logistic regression was used for the association of inflammatory biomarkers in serum with GDM. A p value <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

IL-65–72C/G and TNF-α-857C/T

Mass spectrometry of IL-65–72C/G and TNF-α-857C/T genotypes are shown in Figure 1 and Table 4. Both allele frequencies of IL-65–72C/G (χ2=0.6712, p>0.05) and TNF-α-857C/T (χ2=0.3909, p>0.05) fit the Hardy-Weinberg genetic equilibrium.
Figure 1

Comparisons of distribution frequencies of genotypes and alleles on IL-65–72C/G and TNF-r -857C/T in pregnancies with or without GDM. (A) Mass spectrometry for IL-65–72C/G; (B) distribution frequencies for IL-65–72C/G; (C) mass spectrometry for TNF-α-857C/T; (D) distribution frequencies for TNF-e -857C/T). GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; IL-6 – interleukin-6; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α.

Table 4

Distribution of IL-6–572C/G and TNF-α-857C/T polymorphism in GDM and healthy pregnancies.

GenotypesGDM (n, %)Volunteers (n, %)OR95% CIP value
IL-6–572C/G
 CC27 (19.29)26 (21.67)1.0250.462–2.9610.844
 CG76 (54.29)45 (37.50)2.8361.105–7.3680.031
 GG37 (26.43)49 (40.83)1.0971.433–6.9950.046
 C130 (46.43)97 (40.42)0.036
 G150 (53.57)143 (59.58)
TNF-α-857C/T
 CC102 (72.86)109 (77.86)1.2650.328–3.5700.783
 CT32 (22.86)15 (10.71)3.3161.092–8.3040.025
 TT0 (0)0 (0)
 C236 (88.06)233 (93.95)0.028
 T32 (11.94)15 (6.05)

IL-6 – interluekin-6; GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; OR – odd ratio; CI – confidence interval.

As shown in Figure 1A and 1B, there were 20 samples of GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies without results. The distribution frequencies of IL-65–72C/G in GDM pregnancies were: CC (19.29%), CG (54.29%), and GG (26.43%). The allele frequencies were C (46.43%) and G (53.57%), respectively. In healthy pregnancies, IL-65–72C/G frequencies were CC (21.67%), CG (37.50%), and GG (40.83%), and the allele frequencies were C (40.42%) and G (59.58%). There was no significant difference on genotypes or allele frequencies of IL-65–72C/G between GDM and healthy pregnancies. As shown in Figure 1C and 1D, there were six samples of GDM pregnancies and 16 of healthy pregnancies without results. The distribution frequencies of TNF-α-857C/T in GDM were CC (72.86%) and CT (22.86%), and allele frequencies were C (88.06%) and T (13.56%). In healthy pregnancies, the distribution frequencies of TNF-α-857C/T were CC (77.86%) and CT (10.71%), and the allele frequencies were C (93.95%) and T (6.05%), respectively. The differences of the two genotypes frequencies were statistically significant between GDM and healthy pregnancies (chi-square=5.84, p<0.05), as well as the allele frequencies (chi-square=6.97, p<0.05). The distribution frequency of CT in GDM pregnancies was significantly higher than in healthy pregnancies (OR=3.316, 95% CI=1.092–8.304, p=0.025), which showed that the risk of developing GDM for patients carrying CT genotype.

Clinical characteristics, serum metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers

Table 5 and Figure 2A show the results of the comparisons of clinical characteristics, serum metabolic biomarkers, and inflammatory biomarkers of the pregnancies with or without GDM. There were significant differences (p<0.05) between the GDM pregnancies and the healthy pregnancies in clinical characteristics, including maternal age (29.13±3.65 versus 25.06±5.94 years), pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) (38.68±9.50 versus 28.74±7.26), nulliparous women (10 women versus 28 women), family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (34 women versus 13 women), and history of GDM (8 women versus 1 woman), but not for gestational age. Additionally, serum inflammatory biomarkers were also significant different (p<0.05) between GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies, including hs-CRP (8.38±1.67 versus 4.60±1.04 mg/L), IL-6 (5.85±1.41 versus 3.91±1.66 ng/L), IL-8 (2.17±0.45 versus 0.74±0.12 ng/L), and IL-6/IL-10 ratio (3.15±0.73 versus 1.93±0.46), while excluding IL-10, IL-1β, and TNF-α.
Table 5

Comparisons on clinical characteristics, serum metabolic indexes and inflammatory biomarkers of the pregnancies with or without GDM (X ±SD) (N=120).

GDM (n=60)Control (n=60)P
Maternal age (years)29.13±3.6525.06±5.940.001*
Pre-pregnancy BMI (kg/m2)38.68±9.5028.74±7.260.000*
Nulliparous10 (16.67%)28 (46.67%)0.019*
Gestational age (weeks)21.3±4.0521.8±4.300.811
Family history of T2DM34 (56.67%)13 (21.67%)0.008*
History of GDM8 (113.33%)1 (1.67%)0.042*
FBG (mmol/L)8.03±1.574.20±1.620.001*
FINS (mIU/L)3.15±1.081.92±1.540.001*
HOMA-IR4.89±1.402.16±1.510.001*
HOMA-β75.32±10.64157.49±18.850.000*
hs-CRP (mg/L)8.38±1.674.60±1.040.000*
IL-6 (ng/L)5.85±1.413.91±1.660.002*
IL-8 (ng/L)2.17±0.450.74±0.120.000*
IL-10 (ng/L)1.86±0.522.03±0.390.502
IL-6/IL-10 ratio3.15±0.731.93±0.460.000*
IL-1β (ng/L)0.89±0.640.92±0.510.847
TNF-α (ng/L)8.60±1.087.21±1.190.320

GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; BMI – body mass index; T2DM – type 2 diabetes mellitus; hs-CRP – high sensitivity C-reactive protein; IL – interleukin; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; FBG – fasting blood glucose; FINS – fasting blood insulin; HOMA – homeostasis model assessment; IR – insulin resistance; X±SD – mean ± standard deviations;

P<0.05.

Figure 2

Comparisons on serum and/or placental inflammatory biomarkers and/or adipokines of pregnancies with or without GDM. (A) Serum inflammatory factors; (B) placental inflammatory factors and adipokines, * p<0.05). GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; hs-CRP – high sensitivity C-reactive protein; IL – interleukin; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; NF-κB – nuclear factor-κB; RBP – retinol-binding protein; irs-1 – insulin receptor substrate-1; FATP – fatty acid transport protein; EL – endothelial lipase; LPL – low density lipoprotein; FABP – fatty acid binding protein.

Blood glucose metabolic indexes in serum were significantly different between GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies, including FBG (8.03±1.57 versus 4.20±1.62 mmol/L), FINS (3.15±1.08 versus 1.92±1.54 mIU/L), HOMA-IR (4.89±1.40 versus 2.16±1.51) and HOMA-β (75.32±10.64 versus 157.49±18.85), respectively (p<0.05).

Association of serum inflammatory biomarkers with GDM

As shown in Table 6, some of the serum inflammatory biomarkers were obviously associated with GDM, including CRP (0R=9.52, 95% CI (2.76, 33.10), p=0.001), IL-6 (OR=4.66, 95% CI (1.53, 14.59), p=0.008), IL-8 (OR=2.58, 95% CI (1.27, 10.08), p=0.009) and IL-6/IL-10 ratio (OR=1.75, 95% CI (1.22, 2.68), p=0.003).
Table 6

Association of serum inflammatory biomarkers with GDM (X ±SD).

Inflammatory biomarkersX ±SDOR95% CIP
Log (CRP)1.25±1.039.522.76, 33.100.001*
Log (IL-6)1.29±0.674.661.53, 14.590.008*
Log (IL-8)1.03±0.422.581.27, 10.080.009*
Log (IL-10)0.61±0.320.461.19, 2.430.408
IL-6/IL-10 ratio2.14±1.081.751.22, 2.680.003*
Log (IL-1β)−0.42±0.571.040.37, 2.440.995
Log (TNF-α)1.70±0.661.020.35, 2.730.452

GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; CRP – C-reactive protein; IL – interleukin; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; X ±SD – mean ± standard deviations;

P<0.05.

Inflammatory biomarkers and adipokines in placentas

After delivery, inflammatory biomarkers and adipokines in placentas were detected and compared. The results are shown in Table 7.
Table 7

Inflammatory biomarkers and fat factors in placentas of the pregnancies with or without GDM (X ±SD) (N=120).

GDM (n=60)Control (n=60)P
NF-κB (μg/L)283.56±31.32125.69±17.380.000*
IL-6 (μg/L)177.09±22.68103.85±15.60.002*
IL-8 (μg/L)126.43±16.0245.70±4.950.000*
IL-10 (μg/L)57.32±9.4468.65±9.330.639
IL-6/IL-10 ratio3.09±1.401.51±1.060.000*
IL-1β (mg/L)36.42±5.1013.48±2.060.000*
TNF-α (mg/L)21.61±3.2113.82±2.020.006*
Leptin (mg/L)16.36±2.039.17±1.880.000*
Adiponectin (μg/L)92.58±13.20150.14±17.210.000*
Visfatin (μg/L)127.39±18.6852.28±9.050.000*
RBP-4 (mg/L)22.46±3.0110.72±2.050.002*
Chemerin (mg/L)11.20±1.175.76±0.030.005*
Nesfatin-1 (μg/L)178.32±20.7793.59±11.640.000*
IRS-1 (μg/L)83.94±13.22106.01±14.300.010*
IRS-2 (μg/L)104.28±10.95190.11±20.580.000*
FATP-4 (mg/L)13.06±2.906.50±0.750.000*
EL (μg/L)154.91±20.1689.04±10.370.000*
LPL (mg/L)17.14±3.6810.32±1.070.003*
FABP-1 (μg/L)115.60±12.4463.38±9.830.000*
FABP-3 (μg/L)235.17±20.84105.26±13.020.000*
FABP-4 (μg/L)178.37±20.98112.64±14.020.000*
FABP-5 (μg/L)99.40±11.3742.31±8.290.000*

GDM – gestational diabetes mellitus; NF-κB – nuclear factor-κB; IL – interleukin; TNF-α – tumor necrosis factor-α; RBP – retnol-binding protein; irs-1 – insulin receptor substrate-1; FATP – fatty acid transport protein; EL – endothelial lipase; LPL – low density lipoprotein; FABP – fatty acid binding protein; X ±SD – mean ± standard deviations;

P<0.05.

In Figure 2B, except for IL-10, all the inflammatory biomarkers in placentas had significant differences (p<0.05) between GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies, including NF-κB (283.56±31.32 versus 125.69±17.38 μg/L), IL-6 (177.09±22.68 versus 103.85±15.6 μg/L), IL-8 (126.43±16.02 versus 45.70±4.95 μg/L), IL-6/IL-10 ratio (3.09±1.40 versus 1.51±1.06), IL-1β (36.42±5.10 versus 13.48±2.06 mg/L) and TNF-α (21.61±3.21 versus 13.82±2.02 mg/L). IRS-1 (83.94±13.22 versus 106.01±14.30 μg/L) and IRS-2 (104.28±10.95 versus 190.11±20.58 μg/L) in placentas were significantly different (p<0.05) between GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies. Lipid metabolic indexes all had significant differences (p<0.05) between GDM pregnancies and healthy pregnancies as follows: leptin (16.36±2.03 versus 9.17±1.88 mg/L), adiponectin (92.58±13.20 versus 150.14±17.21 μg/L), visfatin (127.39±18.68 versus 52.28±9.05 μg/L), RBP-4 (22.46±3.01 versus 10.72±2.05 mg/L), chemerin (11.20±1.17 versus 5.76±0.03 mg/L), nesfatin-1 (178.32±20.77 versus 93.59±11.64 μg/L), FATP-4 (13.06±2.90 versus 6.50±0.75 mg/L), EL (154.91±20.16 versus 89.04±10.37 μg/L), LPL (17.14±3.68 versus 10.32±1.07 mg/L), FABP-1 (115.60±12.44 versus 63.38±9.83 μg/L), FABP-3 (235.17±20.84 versus 105.26±13.02 μg/L), FABP-4 (178.37±20.98 versus 112.64±14.02 μg/L) and FABP-5 (99.40±11.37 versus 42.31±8.29 μg/L).

Discussion

In our study, we firstly detected the SNPs of IL-65–72C/G and TNF-α-857C/T in GDM and healthy pregnancies. The results showed that the differences in the CC and CT genotypes of TNF-α-857C/T were statistically significant between GDM and healthy pregnancies, while IL-65–72C/G was without significance. The distribution frequency of TNF-α-857CT in GDM pregnancies was higher than that in healthy pregnancies, which indicated a risk of developing GDM for patients carrying TNF-α-857CT, and T allele was the risk factor. According to previous studies, IL-65–72C/G is associated to obesity [8,9], colon cancer [10], and T2DM [11]; as is TNF-α-857C/T [7,8], but no research has focused on their relationship with GDM. In our study, we did not find an association of IL-65–72C/G with GDM pregnancies. Therefore, we presumed that women carrying TNF-α-857CT in Inner Mongolia were at higher risk for GDM than those without. In addition, by detecting serum factors we found that hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-6/IL-10 were significantly associated with GDM. The inflammatory cytokines TNF-α [12], IL-6 [13,14], hs-CRP [14,15], IL-1 β [16,17], and IL-8 [18] have mostly been found to be increased in GDM pregnancies compared to healthy pregnancies. However, in our study, TNF-α and IL-1β was found to be abnormal in GDM pregnancies, but not significantly. This difference might be due to differences in pregnancies within different population, indicating that for GDM women in Inner Mongolia, abnormal levels of hs-CRP, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-6/IL-10 ratio may be diagnostic biomarkers. In women with GDM, the placenta may adapt to the inflammatory environment and exhibit morphological changes [19-21]. In our study, we collected the placentas from GDM and healthy pregnancies. By detecting the metabolic indexes, we found that the inflammatory biomarkers, including NF-κB, IL-6, IL-8, IL6/IL-10 ratio, IL-1β, and TNF-α, had significant differences between GDM and healthy pregnancies, as well as the adipokines, including leptin, adiponectin, visfatin, RBP-4, chemerin and nesfatin-1, IRS-1, IRS-2, FATP-4, EL, LPL, FABP-1, FABP-3, FABP-4, and FABP-5. This phenomenon showed that the placentas of GDM women were in an inflammatory environment, and that the increased inflammatory mediators might promote intraplacental inflammatory cascades by specific gene transcription or translation. Additionally, the adipose tissue also generated numbers of adipokines to promote the production of inflammatory cytokines, which aggravated the GDM status. Otherwise, we found that both FBG and FINS in serum obviously increased, and the HOMA-IR and HOMA-β were significantly different between GDM and healthy pregnancies. Considering the decreased IRS-1 and IRS-2 in placentas of GDM, we confirmed that glucose metabolism was disordered in the whole body, a finding which was in accorded with previous studies [22,23], as was lipid metabolism [24,25]. However, which cytokines were regulated and how deregulation led to the GDM progression, is still unclear. In the future, there should be further investigations using larger sample sizes and collecting data from pregnant women in different regions.

Conclusions

Our study confirmed that TNF-α-857C/T SNPs and inflammation were associated with GDM, and glucose and lipid metabolisms were disordered in GDM.
  21 in total

1.  Summary and recommendations of the Fifth International Workshop-Conference on Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Boyd E Metzger; Thomas A Buchanan; Donald R Coustan; Alberto de Leiva; David B Dunger; David R Hadden; Moshe Hod; John L Kitzmiller; Siri L Kjos; Jeremy N Oats; David J Pettitt; David A Sacks; Christos Zoupas
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 19.112

2.  Increased Maternal Serum Interleukin-6 Concentrations at 11 to 14 Weeks of Gestation in Low Risk Pregnancies Complicated with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Development of a Prediction Model.

Authors:  D Hassiakos; M Eleftheriades; I Papastefanou; I Lambrinoudaki; D Kappou; D Lavranos; A Akalestos; L Aravantinos; P Pervanidou; G Chrousos
Journal:  Horm Metab Res       Date:  2015-01-07       Impact factor: 2.936

3.  Circulating galanin and IL-6 concentrations in gestational diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Sümeyra Nergiz; Özlem Sündüz Altınkaya; Mert Küçük; Hasan Yüksel; Selda Demircan Sezer; İmran Kurt Ömürlü; Ali Rıza Odabaşı
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 2.260

4.  Mitochondrial function and glucose metabolism in the placenta with gestational diabetes mellitus: role of miR-143.

Authors:  Sribalasubashini Muralimanoharan; Alina Maloyan; Leslie Myatt
Journal:  Clin Sci (Lond)       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 6.124

5.  Circulating pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines in Polish women with gestational diabetes.

Authors:  M Kuzmicki; B Telejko; A Zonenberg; J Szamatowicz; A Kretowski; A Nikolajuk; P Laudanski; M Gorska
Journal:  Horm Metab Res       Date:  2008-04-30       Impact factor: 2.936

6.  Care of young children with diabetes in the child care setting: a position statement of the American Diabetes Association.

Authors:  Linda M Siminerio; Anastasia Albanese-O'Neill; Jane L Chiang; Katie Hathaway; Crystal C Jackson; Jill Weissberg-Benchell; Janel L Wright; Alan L Yatvin; Larry C Deeb
Journal:  Diabetes Care       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 19.112

7.  Changes in placental adipocytokine gene expression associated with gestational diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  M Meller; C Qiu; S Vadachkoria; D F Abetew; D A Luthy; M A Williams
Journal:  Physiol Res       Date:  2005-12-12       Impact factor: 1.881

8.  Importance of metastatic lymph node ratio in non-metastatic, lymph node-invaded colon cancer: a clinical trial.

Authors:  Arda Isik; Kemal Peker; Deniz Firat; Bahri Yilmaz; Ilyas Sayar; Oguz Idiz; Coskun Cakir; Ismail Demiryilmaz; Ismayil Yilmaz
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2014-08-04

9.  Gestational diabetes in Saudi women identified by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group versus the former American Diabetes Association criteria: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Eman Alfadhli
Journal:  Ann Saudi Med       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.526

10.  Diabetes and pregnancy: an endocrine society clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  Ian Blumer; Eran Hadar; David R Hadden; Lois Jovanovič; Jorge H Mestman; M Hassan Murad; Yariv Yogev
Journal:  J Clin Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 5.958

View more
  24 in total

1.  Placenta inflammation is closely associated with gestational diabetes mellitus.

Authors:  Xue Pan; Xin Jin; Jun Wang; Qing Hu; Bing Dai
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 4.060

2.  Expression and predictive value of NLRP3 in patients with atrial fibrillation and stroke.

Authors:  Jue Sun; Jiayi Xu; Qianhong Yang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 3.940

3.  Trajectory patterns and factors influencing perinatal fatigue among Chinese women from late pregnancy to 6 months after delivery.

Authors:  Xiaoxiao Zhu; Haiou Xia
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 3.061

4.  Polysaccharide IV from Lycium barbarum L. Improves Lipid Profiles of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus of Pregnancy by Upregulating ABCA1 and Downregulating Sterol Regulatory Element-Binding Transcription 1 via miR-33.

Authors:  Shuli Yang; Lihui Si; Limei Fan; Wenwen Jian; Huilin Pei; Ruixin Lin
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 5.555

5.  IP3-Mediated Calcium Signaling Is Involved in the Mechanism of Fractalkine-Induced Hyperalgesia Response.

Authors:  Aitao Wang; Tingting Yang; Lingli Zhang; Lizhou Jia; Qingping Wu; Shanglong Yao; Jianjun Xu; Hongxin Yang
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-12-05

6.  Circulating chemerin levels and gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zhongwei Zhou; Hongmei Chen; Huixiang Ju; Mingzhong Sun
Journal:  Lipids Health Dis       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 3.876

7.  Adiponectin gene polymorphisms and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lin-Ting Huang; Shi-Lan Wu; Xin Liao; Shu-Juan Ma; Hong-Zhuan Tan
Journal:  World J Clin Cases       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 1.337

8.  The Potential Role of Chemerin, Lipocalin 2, and Apelin in the Diagnosis and Pathophysiology of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Radzisław Mierzyński; Elżbieta Poniedziałek-Czajkowska; Dominik Dłuski; Maciej Kamiński; Agnieszka Mierzyńska; Bożena Leszczyńska-Gorzelak
Journal:  J Diabetes Res       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.011

Review 9.  Molecular cross-talk of IL-6 in tumors and new progress in combined therapy.

Authors:  Zuoqing Song; Dian Ren; Xiaohong Xu; Yuxin Wang
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2018-03-30       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Visfatin is regulated by interleukin‑6 and affected by the PPAR‑γ pathway in BeWo cells.

Authors:  Yanhong Zhang; Yan Huo; Wenhui He; Suxin Liu; Hongyan Li; Li Li
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 2.952

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.