| Literature DB >> 29538359 |
Maggie A Stanislawski1, Catherine A Lozupone2, Brandie D Wagner3, Merete Eggesbø4, Marci K Sontag1, Nichole M Nusbacher2, Mercedes Martinez1, Dana Dabelea5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence supports that the gut microbiota may be involved in the pathophysiology of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and may also offer avenues for treatment or prevention.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29538359 PMCID: PMC6185796 DOI: 10.1038/pr.2018.32
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pediatr Res ISSN: 0031-3998 Impact factor: 3.756
Demographic, comorbidity, and dietary information for adolescents in the EPOCH cohort, by NAFLD status (defined as HFF≥5%)
| Variable | Total (N=107) | NAFLD = 0 | NAFLD = 1 | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| N (%) or Median (IQR) | ||||
|
| ||||
| Male | 55 (51.4%) | 50 (50.5%) | 5 (62.5%) | 0.72 |
| Race | ||||
| Non-Hispanic White | 52 (48.6%) | 49 (49.5%) | 3 (37.5%) | 0.02 |
| Hispanic | 40 (37.4%) | 35 (35.4%) | 5 (62.5%) | |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 12 (11.2%) | 12 (12.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Non-Hispanic Other | 3 (2.8%) | 3 (3.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Parental Education Level | ||||
| High School | 15 (14.0%) | 11 (11.1%) | 4 (50.0%) | 0.001 |
| Some college/Associate degree | 33 (30.8%) | 31 (31.3%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
| Bachelor's degree | 31 (29.0%) | 29 (29.3%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
| Graduate degree | 28 (26.2%) | 28 (28.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Household income | ||||
| $16,000 through $34,999 | 4 (3.7%) | 4 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0.02 |
| $35,000 through $74,999 | 40 (37.4%) | 34 (34.3%) | 6 (75.0%) | |
| $75,000 or more | 59 (55.1%) | 57 (57.6%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
| Don't know/Missing | 4 (3.7%) | 4 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Delivery Mode | ||||
| C-section | 25 (23.4%) | 24 (24.2%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0.68 |
| Vaginal | 82 (76.6%) | 75 (75.8%) | 7 (87.5%) | |
| Exposure to DM in utero | 30 (28.0%) | 28 (28.3%) | 2 (25.0%) | >0.99 |
| Pre-pregnancy BMI | 26.1 (22.8–30.3) | 25.9 (22.5–30.3) | 30.9 (25.8–38.4) | 0.01 |
|
| ||||
| In person visit | ||||
|
| ||||
| Age (years) | 15.6 (15.1–16.5) | 15.7 (15.1–16.5) | 15.6 (15.6–16.4) | 0.16 |
| BMI | 22.5 (19.8–26.0) | 21.9 (19.5–24.9) | 32.2 (27.6–36.0) | <.001 |
| BMI-for-age Z | 0.5 (−0.3 to 1.5) | 0.4 (−0.3 to 1.2) | 2.0 (1.7–2.5) | <.001 |
| Weight group (based on BMI percentile) | ||||
| Underweight | 4 (3.7%) | 4 (4.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | <.001 |
| Normal weight | 65 (60.7%) | 65 (65.7%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Overweight | 16 (15.0%) | 14 (14.1%) | 2 (25.0%) | |
| Obese | 22 (20.6%) | 16 (16.2%) | 6 (75.0%) | |
| Waist circumference | 76.4 (70.6–86.3) | 75.4 (70.3–84.5) | 93.0 (92.3–106.4) | <.001 |
| Hepatic Fat Fraction | 2.0 (1.4–2.8) | 1.9 (1.3–2.5) | 7.7 (6.0–8.5) | <.001 |
| Alanine aminotransferase (U/L) | 25.0 (20.0–31.0) | 24.0 (19.5–30.0) | 31.0 (29.0–39.0) | 0.002 |
| HOMA-IR (Homeostasis model of insulin resistance) | 3.0 (2.3–4.4) | 2.8 (2.2–4.3) | 6.1 (4.6–8.4) | <.001 |
|
| ||||
| Diet | ||||
|
| ||||
| Kilocalories | 1547 (1217–2078) | 1567 (1217–2091) | 1497 (1085–1899) | 0.5 |
| % Carbohydrates | 48.6 (44.2–52.3) | 48.6 (43.7–52.3) | 48.1 (44.8–52.3) | 0.22 |
| % Added Sugars | 24.6 (20.5–28.2) | 24.5 (20.5–28.2) | 25.1 (19.8–28.4) | 0.43 |
| % Fiber | 3.0 (2.5–3.9) | 3.0 (2.5–3.9) | 2.6 (2.4–3.8) | 0.72 |
| % Insoluble Fiber | 1.9 (1.5–2.5) | 2.0 (1.5–2.5) | 1.6 (1.5–2.4) | 0.68 |
| % Soluble Fiber | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 1.1 (0.9–1.4) | 1.0 (0.9–1.3) | 0.54 |
| % Fat | 38.0 (34.4–41.8) | 38.0 (34.4–41.8) | 37.1 (34.0–40.1) | 0.16 |
| % SFA | 13.5 (11.9–15.3) | 13.4 (11.9–15.0) | 14.2 (12.4–15.4) | 0.71 |
| % PUFA | 5.7 (4.8–6.7) | 5.8 (4.8–6.8) | 5.0 (4.5–5.7) | 0.10 |
| % MUFA | 15.4 (13.7–16.8) | 15.5 (13.7–16.8) | 14.7 (13.6–15.8) | 0.15 |
| % Protein | 34.2 (31.3–38.3) | 34.2 (31.2–38.2) | 35.9 (32.7–40.3) | 0.53 |
|
| ||||
| Alpha Diversity | ||||
|
| ||||
| Shannon Diversity Index | 4.8 (4.4–5.2) | 4.8 (4.4–5.2) | 4.5 (4.2–5.0) | 0.32 |
| PD whole tree | 10.8 (9.0–12.2) | 10.9 (9.0–12.2) | 9.2 (8.9–12.1) | 0.6 |
| Observed species | 67.0 (55.0–78.0) | 67.0 (56.0–78.0) | 59.5 (52.0–78.5) | 0.63 |
Figure 1The relationship between hepatic fat fraction (HFF) with square root transformation and Shannon Diversity Index of gut microbiota of adolescents in the EPOCH cohort. Shannon diversity is significantly lower with higher HFF, when controlling for race/ethnicity, sex, age, parental education, exposure to diabetes in utero and delivery method at birth (β=−0.20, 95% CI −0.37, −0.03; p-value=0.03).
Figure 2Principal Coordinate Analysis plots of unweighted (left) and weighted (right) UniFrac distance by a) amount of hepatic fat fraction, and b) weight group. Statistical models showed a significant relationship between unweighted UniFrac distance and HFF (p=0.01), as well as between weighted UniFrac distance and BMI z-score (p=0.04).
Results of statistical models to assess the association between measures of taxonomic composition (Unweighted UniFrac, Weighted UniFrac and Bray-Curtis distance metrics) and metabolic measures, including HFF, BMI z-score, waist circumference, and HOMA-IR (homeostasis model of insulin resistance). Adjusted models controlled for the following covariates: sex, race/ethnicity, age, parental education, delivery method at birth and in utero exposure to diabetes.
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Outcome | Unweighted | Weighted | Bray-Curtis | Omnibus | Unweighted | Weighted | Bray-Curtis | Omnibus |
| HFF | 0.152 | 0.173 | 0.118 | 0.308 | ||||
| BMI z-score | 0.563 | 0.257 | 0.079 | 0.453 | 0.068 | 0.253 | 0.158 | |
| Waist circumference (N=106) | 0.252 | 0.763 | 0.081 | 0.157 | 0.209 | 0.772 | ||
| HOMA-IR (N=106) | 0.212 | 0.816 | 0.864 | 0.389 | 0.279 | 0.923 | 0.933 | 0.493 |
Figure 3This figure shows the results of feature selection procedures that choose the most important features for the prediction of hepatic fat fraction (HFF) in adolescents in the EPOCH cohort. Four groups of variables were explored: gut microbiota taxa, dietary components, comorbidities & demographic variables, and the combination of all these. For each group of variables, we indicate the selected features and amount of variation in HFF that is explained (R2 and the 95% confidence interval, CI).
This table summarizes the general relationships between hepatic fat fraction (HFF) and the features selected in the random forests for the prediction of HFF. Plots are used to understand the direction of the relationships between the predictors and the outcome, as well as the inter-relationships between the predictors, since random forests do not provide regression coefficients; the partial and interaction plots showing these relationships in detail are in the supplemental figures. Since random forests allow for complex interactions between the predictors, this table notes when there is no evidence of strong 2-way interactions and notes the interacting features when there is evidence of interactions. In order to fully understand the nature of these interactions, please see the supplemental figures.
| Group | Selected Features | Adjusted association | Interactions? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxa | Negative | No | |
| o_RF32 | Positive | No | |
| Positive | No | ||
| Positive | |||
| Positive | |||
| Negative | |||
| U-shaped: High HFF with low and high abundance, low HFF with moderate | |||
|
| |||
| Diet | % Carbohydrates | Negative | % MUFA |
| % Total fat | Positive | % MUFA | |
| % MUFA | Negative | Carbohydrates, | |
|
| |||
| Comorbidities & Demographics | BMI z-score | Positive | Delivery mode |
| Delivery mode | Higher HFF with vaginal birth | BMI | |
|
| |||
| Combined Features | Positive | ||
| Positive | |||
| % MUFA | Negative | ||
| BMI z-score | Positive | ||