| Literature DB >> 29844477 |
Soo Jin Yang1, So-Young Kwak2, Garam Jo2, Tae-Jin Song3, Min-Jeong Shin4.
Abstract
The identification of metabolic alterations in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is useful for elucidating the pathophysiology of the disease and in classifying high-risk individuals. In this study, we prospectively examined the associations between serum metabolites and T2D risk in a Korean community-based cohort (the Ansan-Ansung cohort). Data were obtained from 1,939 participants with available metabolic profiles and without diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or cancer at baseline. The acylcarnitine, amino acid, amine, and phospholipid levels in fasting serum samples were analyzed by targeted metabolomics. During the 8-year follow-up period, we identified 282 cases of incident T2D. Of all metabolites measured, 22 were significantly associated with T2D risk. Specifically, serum levels of alanine, arginine, isoleucine, proline, tyrosine, valine, hexose and five phosphatidylcholine diacyls were positively associated with T2D risk, whereas lyso-phosphatidylcholine acyl C17:0 and C18:2 and other glycerophospholipids were negatively associated with T2D risk. The associated metabolites were further correlated with T2D-relevant risk factors such as insulin resistance and triglyceride indices. In addition, a healthier diet (as measured by the modified recommended food score) was independently associated with T2D risk. Alterations of metabolites such as amino acids and choline-containing phospholipids appear to be associated with T2D risk in Korean adults.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29844477 PMCID: PMC5974077 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26320-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Flow chart of study population.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Total (n = 1939) | Recommended food score (RFS) | p-value† | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 (n = 465) | Q2 (n = 486) | Q3 (n = 480) | Q4 (n = 508) | |||
| Score, mean/median (range) | 19.6/20 (0–48) | 7.6/8 (0–12) | 16.1/16 (13–19) | 22.5/22 (20–25) | 31.2/30 (26–48) | — |
| Age, years | 56.6 ± 0.2 | 59.9 ± 0.4a | 58.3 ± 0.4b | 55.2 ± 0.4c | 53.2 ± 0.3d | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| Male | 46.0 (892) | 46.7 (217) | 45.5 (221) | 49.6 (238) | 42.5 (216) | 0.165 |
| Female | 54.0 (1,047) | 53.3 (248) | 54.5 (265) | 50.4 (242) | 57.5 (292) | |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 24.3 ± 0.1 | 24.2 ± 0.2 | 24.2 ± 0.1 | 24.3 ± 0.1 | 24.5 ± 0.1 | 0.349 |
|
| ||||||
| Elementary | 40.9 (792) | 62.3 (289) | 50.0 (243) | 31.6 (151) | 21.5 (109) | <0.001 |
| Middle school | 20.3 (392) | 17.7 (82) | 21.2 (103) | 20.7 (99) | 21.3 (108) | |
| High school | 27.7 (535) | 15.3 (71) | 21.6 (105) | 33.9 (162) | 38.9 (197) | |
| University | 11.2 (216) | 4.7 (22) | 7.2 (35) | 13.8 (66) | 18.3 (93) | |
|
| ||||||
| Lowest | 37.4 (718) | 59.0 (269) | 44.5 (215) | 29.3 (140) | 18.7 (94) | <0.001 |
| Lower middle | 22.9 (439) | 22.8 (104) | 25.3 (122) | 20.5 (98) | 22.9 (115) | |
| Upper middle | 27.7 (531) | 14.7 (67) | 22.8 (110) | 36.2 (173) | 36.0 (181) | |
| Highest | 12.1 (232) | 3.5 (16) | 7.5 (36) | 14.0 (67) | 22.5 (113) | |
|
| ||||||
| Never | 63.1 (1,222) | 60.0 (279) | 64.2 (312) | 60.8 (292) | 66.9 (339) | <0.001 |
| Former | 16.7 (323) | 13.8 (64) | 14.8 (72) | 20.4 (98) | 17.6 (89) | |
| Current | 20.3 (393) | 26.2 (122) | 21.0 (102) | 18.9 (90) | 15.6 (79) | |
|
| ||||||
| Never | 48.3 (935) | 52.0 (242) | 49.8 (242) | 45.2 (217) | 46.2 (234) | 0.358 |
| Former | 4.3 (84) | 4.7 (22) | 3.9 (19) | 4.4 (21) | 4.3 (22) | |
| Current | 47.4 (919) | 43.2 (201) | 46.3 (225) | 50.4 (242) | 49.5 (251) | |
| Metabolic equivalent (h) | 53.5 ± 0.4 | 58.2 ± 0.8a | 54.9 ± 0.8b | 50.0 ± 0.7c | 51.1 ± 0.7c | <0.001 |
| Energy intake, kcal | 1775.2 ± 13.6 | 1449.5 ± 19.6a | 1665.2 ± 22.2b | 1825.7 ± 22.8c | 2127.0 ± 31.5d | <0.001 |
| Hypertension %, (n) | 31.6 (613) | 37.2 (173) | 34.4 (167) | 30.2 (145) | 25.2 (128) | <0.001 |
Values are expressed as means ± standard error for continuous variables and percentages and numbers counts for categorical variables. †Statistical differences were determined using chi-square test for categorical variables and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for continuous variables with Bonferroni’s multiple correction (p < 0.05).
Figure 2Metabolites being associated with future Type 2 diabetes mellitus risk. Hazard ratios were obtained with cox proportional hazards regression model adjusting for sex, age, energy intake, body mass index, metabolic equivalent, smoking status, drinking status, household income, and education level, consumption of coffee, red meat, and whole grain, and history of hypertension. LysoPC a: lyso phosphatidylcholine acyl; PC aa: phosphatidylcholine diacyl; PC ae: phosphatidylcholine acyl-alkyl; SM(OH): hydroxysphingomyelin; SM: sphingomyelin.
Figure 3Correlation analysis plot of metabolites and biomarkers. *Correlation coefficients were obtained with partial correlation analysis adjusting for sex, age, energy intake, body mass index, metabolic equivalent, smoking status, drinking status, household income, and education level (p < 0.05). †The value of biomarkers used in these analyses were log-transformed. LysoPC a: lyso phosphatidylcholine acyl; PC aa: phosphatidylcholine diacyl; PC ae: phosphatidylcholine acyl-alkyl; SM(OH): hydroxysphingomyelin; SM: sphingomyelin.
Risk of type 2 diabetes according to metabolites and diet quality score.
| PC aa C32:1 | SM(OH) C22:2 | Modified RFS | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | p-value | HR | p-value | HR | p-value | |
| Model 1 | 1.469 | <0.001 | 0.714 | <0.001 | — | — |
| Model 2 | — | — | — | — | 0.795 | <0.001 |
|
| ||||||
| PC aa C32:1 | 1.428 | <0.001 | — | — | 0.837 | 0.006 |
| SM(OH) C22:2 | — | — | 0.734 | <0.001 | 0.826 | 0.003 |
Hazard Ratios were obtained with cox proportional hazards regression model according to the model adjusted. Basic model: age, sex, area, metabolic equivalent, smoking status, drinking status, household income, education level, and prevalence of hypertension adjusted (data not shown). Model 1: basic model + metabolites adjusted; Model 2: basic model + modified RFS adjusted; Model 3: basic model + metabolites + modified RFS adjusted. The values of metabolites used in this analysis were log-transformed and normalized using z score.