| Literature DB >> 29349498 |
Lin Shi1,2, Carl Brunius3, Marko Lehtonen4,5, Seppo Auriola4,5, Ingvar A Bergdahl6, Olov Rolandsson7, Kati Hanhineva5,8, Rikard Landberg9,3,10.
Abstract
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aims of the present work were to identify plasma metabolites that predict future type 2 diabetes, to investigate the changes in identified metabolites among individuals who later did or did not develop type 2 diabetes over time, and to assess the extent to which inclusion of predictive metabolites could improve risk prediction.Entities:
Keywords: Metabolomics; Multivariate modelling; Predictive biomarker; Reproducibility; Risk prediction; Traditional risk factor; Type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29349498 PMCID: PMC6448991 DOI: 10.1007/s00125-017-4521-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetologia ISSN: 0012-186X Impact factor: 10.122
Fig. 1(a) Flowchart of participant selection from the Västerbotten Intervention Programme cohort. (b) Information on baseline and 10 year follow-up sampling among 187 type 2 diabetes cases. Group A, where the second sample was drawn before (median 2 years) type 2 diabetes diagnosis (n = 26 pairs); group B, where the second sample was drawn in the same year of type 2 diabetes diagnosis (n = 52 pairs); group C, where the second sample was drawn after (median 4 years) type 2 diabetes diagnosis (n = 109 pairs)
Baseline characteristics of participants who later developed type 2 diabetes and their matched controls in a case–control study nested within the Västerbotten Intervention Programme cohort
| Characteristic | Cases | Matched controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mena | 44.5 | 44.5 | |
| Age, yearsa | 50.2 (7.9) | 50.1 (8.0) | |
| Fasting glucose, mmol/l | 6.0 (0.9) | 5.5 (1.1) | <0.0001 |
| 2 h-PG, mmol/l | 8.3 (2.8) | 6.5 (1.6) | <0.0001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 29.5 (4.9) | 25.5 (3.8) | <0.0001 |
| HOMA-IRb | 1.7 (1.1) | 0.9 (0.7) | <0.0001 |
| HOMA-%Bb | 101.5 (72.9) | 74.5 (27.7) | <0.0001 |
| Triacylglycerols, mmol/l | 2.0 (1.3) | 1.4 (0.7) | <0.0001 |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/l | 5.9 (1.2) | 5.7 (1.1) | <0.0001 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 138 (18.1) | 128 (17.2) | <0.0001 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg | 85 (10.4) | 80 (9.7) | <0.0001 |
| Total energy intake, kJ/day | 7186.0 (2551.2) | 7282.2 (2594.1) | 0.6 |
| Dietary fibre, g/day | 18.9 (7.4) | 19.5 (8.2) | 0.3 |
| Whole grains, g/day | 72.2 (36.5) | 74.4 (39.6) | 0.5 |
| Fat, g/day | 68.2 (26.0) | 64.3 (27.7) | 0.6 |
| Alcohol, g/day | 3.3 (6.7) | 3.6 (4.3) | 0.1 |
| Smoking status | 0.03 | ||
| Current smoker | 22.4 | 19.1 | |
| Former smoker | 28.6 | 25.8 | |
| Occasional smoker | 1.0 | 3.8 | |
| Former occasional smoker | 9.2 | 7.2 | |
| Non-smoker | 38.7 | 43.9 | |
| Physical activityc | 0.1 | ||
| Inactive | 18.7 | 17.9 | |
| Moderately inactive | 35.4 | 35.9 | |
| Moderately active | 28.2 | 27.3 | |
| Active | 17.7 | 18.9 | |
| Education | 0.04 | ||
| Elementary school | 33.3 | 29.8 | |
| Vocational (training) school | 28.1 | 26.2 | |
| Secondary school | 22.3 | 20.6 | |
| University education/college | 16.3 | 23.4 |
Data are mean (SD) or %
aMatching factors
bHOMA-IR and HOMA-%B at baseline among a subset of 187 case–control pairs with repeated samples available
cPhysical activity defined based on the Cambridge physical activity index [47], which is a validated index based on two questions in the Västerbotten Intervention Programme questionnaire related to physical activity in work and leisure
Fig. 2ORs per SD increment (95% CI) of metabolites based on results from multivariate-adjusted conditional logistic regression models. Model 1 (blue): adjustment for FPG, BMI; model 2 (red): further adjustment for physical activity, education, smoking, consumptions of alcohol, dietary fibre, red and processed meat and coffee intake; model 3 (green): additional adjustment for plasma total cholesterol, triacylglycerols, and systolic and diastolic BP. Error bars indicate the 95% CI; a denote novel predictive biomarkers found in the current study
Metabolites that were significantly associated with odds of developing type 2 diabetes in the present study and in studies reported in the literature, metabolite changes at the 10 year follow-up among controls and cases, and effect of medication in the present study
| MetaMetabolite | Association with risk of developing type 2 diabetes at baseline | Changes in metabolites over time | Medication | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directiona | Pathophysiologyb | Referencesc | ICC (95% CI)d | Cases vs controlse | Baseline vs follow-upf | ||
| LysoPC(18:2) | – | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.38 (0.26, 0.50) | Lower | ||
| LysoPC(18:1) | – | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.51 (0.40, 0.61) | Lower | ||
| LysoPC(p-16:0) | – | HOMA-IR | 0.42 (0.31, 0.48) | Lower | Lower | ||
| LysoPC(17:0) | – | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.22 (0.11, 0.38) | Lower | Lower | |
| LysoPC(19:1) | – | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.5 (0.40, 0.61) | Lower | Lower | ||
| LysoPC(20:1) | – | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.27 (0.17, 0.41) | Lower | ||
| PC(16:0/16:1) | + | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.25 (0.14, 0.40) | Higher | Affectedg | |
| PC 583.3792@10.75 | – | HOMA-IR | 0.10 (0.03, 0.31) | Lower | |||
| PC(16:1/14:0)h | + | 0.25 (0.14, 0.40) | Higher | ||||
| PC(15:1/18:2)h | – | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | [ | 0.45 (0.34, 0.56) | Lower | Lower | |
| PC(17:0/18:2) | – | HOMA-IR | 0.21 (0.11, 0.38) | Lower | |||
| DAG(16:1/16:1)h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.28 (0.16, 0.42) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| DAG(14:0/16:0)h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.31 (0.20, 0.45) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| DAG 531.4484@13.29h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.36 (0.25, 0.49) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| DAG 571.4437@13.30h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.40 (0.29, 0.53) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| DAG(14:0/18:1)h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.37 (0.25, 0.49) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| DAG(16:0/18:1)h | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.43 (0.32, 0.55) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| Fatty acid 364.333@10.46 | + | HOMA-IRi | 0.35 (0.24, 0.48) | Higher | |||
| Fatty acid 259.1608@7.63 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.49 (0.38, 0.59) | Higher | |||
| 2-Methylbutyroylcarnitine | + | HOMA-IRi | [ | 0.54 (0.44, 0.64) | Higher | ||
| 3-Hydroxyisovalerylcarnitine | + | [ | 0.41 (0.30, 0.53) | Higher | |||
| Phenylalanine | + | HOMA-IRi | [ | 0.62 (0.53, 0.70) | Higher | Affectedg | |
| Leucine | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | [ | 0.65 (0.57, 0.73) | Higher | Higher | |
| Isoleucine | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | [ | 0.68 (0.59, 0.75) | Higher | Higher | |
| Valine | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | [ | 0.50 (0.37, 0.58) | Higher | Higher | |
| Tryptophan | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-B%i | [ | 0.46 (0.35, 0.57) | Higher | Affectedg | |
| + | HOMA-IR | [ | 0.50 (0.39, 0.60) | Higher | |||
| Alanine | + | [ | 0.32 (0.21, 0.45) | Higher | |||
| Citrulline | + | HOMA-IRi | [ | 0.43 (0.32, 0.54) | – | ||
| – | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%Bi | [ | 0.39 (0.28, 0.51) | Lower | Affectedg | ||
| 2-Hydroxyethanesulfonate | – | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%Bi | 0.34 (0.23, 0.47) | Lower | Affectedg | ||
| Glutamate | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | [ | 0.39 (0.28, 0.52) | Higher | Higher | |
| Glutamate derivate 316.0887@6.19 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.41 (0.30, 0.53) | Higher | Higher | ||
| Bile acid386.2455 @8.21 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.65 (0.56, 0.72) | Higher | Higher | ||
| 3-Methyl-2-oxovaleric acid | + | HOMA-IRi | [ | 0.61 (0.48, 0.67) | Higher | Higher | |
| 161.0062@2.7 | – | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.45 (0.35, 0.57) | Lower | Affectedg | ||
| 88.0162@1.71 | + | HOMA-IR | 0.23 (0.12, 0.38) | Higher | |||
| 198.0142 @1.71 | + | HOMA-IR | 0.24 (0.13, 0.40) | Higher | |||
| 491.1196@6.19 | – | HOMA-IR | 0.52 (0.42, 0.62) | Lower | |||
| 518.4333@12.07 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.40 (0.28, 0.52) | Higher | |||
| 590.4876@14.11 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.35 (0.24, 0.48) | Higher | |||
| 428.2242@7.98 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.76 (0.70, 0.82) | Higher | Affectedg | ||
| 566.3105@8.28 | + | HOMA-IR, HOMA-%B | 0.54 (0.44, 0.64) | Higher | |||
| 614.3679@8.60 | + | 0.63 (0.54, 0.71) | Higher | ||||
| 665.2645@9.87 | – | 0.50 (0.40, 0.61) | Lower | ||||
| 597.4023@10.93 | – | HOMA-IRi | 0.22 (0.12, 0.38) | Lower | Affectedg | ||
aDirection: + denotes a higher concentration of metabolite present in cases, while − denotes a lower concentration of metabolites compared with cases
bMetabolites at baseline correlated significantly (Bonferroni-adjusted p < 0.05) with HOMA-IR and/or HOMA-%B
cPrevious findings reported in the literature from 2013 to the present. For each metabolite, the list of papers is not exhaustive. Reviews are not considered. For lipids, reference is made only to publications that report fatty acid constituents
dICC represents long-term reproducibility of metabolites among healthy controls (n = 187) over 10 years. ICC ≥0.4 denotes good to excellent reproducibility
eDifference between cases (n = 187) and their matched controls, independent of BMI, age, sex and time to diagnosis stratification. ‘Higher’ means metabolite level is higher in the case than in the matched control, and vice versa
fThe difference between baseline and the 10 year follow-up among cases, independent of BMI, age, sex and time to diagnosis stratification. ‘Higher’ means metabolite level is higher at follow-up than at baseline, and vice versa
gGroup-specific difference in metabolites between baseline and 10 year follow-up in 187 cases. Four groups were created according to medication: no medication (n = 19), only glucose-lowering medication (n = 13), other medication (n = 48), and glucose-lowering and other medication (n = 107). ‘Affected’ means that medication affected changes in metabolite levels between baseline and 10 year follow-up among cases
hGroup-specific differences in metabolites between baseline and 10 year follow-up in 187 cases. Three groups were created depending on when type 2 diabetes diagnosis occurred in relation to the 10 year follow-up (group A: repeated sampling before diagnosis; group B: repeated sampling close to diagnosis; group C: repeated sampling after diagnosis)
iPartial Spearman correlations of metabolites with HOMA-%B and/or HOMA-IR were affected by time to diagnosis, and significant correlations were only found a median time of 6 years before type 2 diabetes onset
Fig. 3Comparison of the prediction performance of clinical risk factors, metabolites and their combinations for risk of type 2 diabetes. (a) Optimally selected subset of predictors, employing a validated random forest algorithm, for TS, CS and metabolite score (MS). (b) Prediction performance of different models trained from metabolites, traditional risk factors and their combinations. AUCROC values were obtained from 10,000 models where the samples were randomly split into training (60%) and test sets (40%) for prediction and validation; the AUCROC values were 0.73 (95% CI 0.69, 0.76) for MS, 0.74 (95% CI 0.70, 0.77) for model 1, 0.77 (95% CI 0.73, 0.79) for model 1 + MS, 0.72 (95% CI 0.67, 0.74) for model 2, 0.75 (95% CI 0.72, 0.78) for model 2 + MS, 0.78 (95% CI 0.76, 0.81) for TS, 0.80 (95% CI 0.77, 0.83) for TS + MS and 0.79 (95% CI 0.76, 0.82) for CS. Adding an MS to model 1 resulted in a continuous net reclassification improvement (NRI) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.73, 0.95) and an integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) of 0.16 (95% CI 0.14, 0.19) (p < 0.001 for both analyses), and to model 2 NRI 0.76 (95% CI 0.65, 0.88) and IDI 0.12 (0.09, 0.14) (p < 0.01 for both analyses), indicating a significant improvement in risk stratification. Adding MS to TS resulted in a marginal increase in risk stratification (NRI 0.52 [95% CI 0.40, 0.64], p < 0.05; IDI 0.03 [95% CI 0.02, 0.04]; p > 0.05)