| Literature DB >> 30116286 |
Qi Zhao1, Hui Shen2, Kuan-Jui Su2, Ji-Gang Zhang2, Qing Tian2, Lan-Juan Zhao2, Chuan Qiu2, Qiang Zhang2, Timothy J Garrett3, Jiawang Liu4,5, Hong-Wen Deng2,6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals' peak bone mineral density (BMD) achieved and maintained at ages 20-40 years is the most powerful predictor of low bone mass and osteoporotic fractures later in life. The aim of this study was to identify metabolomic factors associated with peak BMD variation in US Caucasian women.Entities:
Keywords: Bone mineral density; Liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry; Metabolites; Metabolomic; Osteoporosis
Year: 2018 PMID: 30116286 PMCID: PMC6086033 DOI: 10.1186/s12986-018-0296-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Metab (Lond) ISSN: 1743-7075 Impact factor: 4.169
Characteristics of the study participants
| Low BMDa ( | High BMDa ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 31.2 (4.9) | 31.8 (5.3) | 0.52 |
| Weight, kg | 58.4 (7.1) | 81.3 (24.1) | < 0.001 |
| Height, cm | 163.5 (6.5) | 165.6 (6.2) | 0.05 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 21.9 (2.5) | 29.7 (8.6) | < 0.001 |
| Waist circumference, cm | 71.1 (9.7) | 84.6 (18.0) | < 0.001 |
| Current smoking, % | 32.3 | 38.0 | 0.61 |
| Alcohol drinking, g/day | 39.1 (62.1) | 34.0 (41.8) | 0.58 |
| Physical activity, times/week | 3.2 (2.2) | 3.1 (2.1) | 0.81 |
| Dairy intake, servings/day | 1.5 (1.4) | 1.6 (1.1) | 0.91 |
| Total hip BMD, g/cm2 | 0.77 (0.06) | 1.11 (0.08) | < 0.001 |
| Hip BMD Z-score | −1.25 (0.58) | 1.63 (0.63) | < 0.001 |
BMD bone mineral density, BMI body mass index
aMeans (standard deviation) for continuous variables and percentages for discontinuous variables
Fig. 1The classification of the low and high BMD groups using PLS-DA. PLS-DA partial least-squares discriminant analysis
The differential metabolites between low and high BMD groups
| Metabolite | Class | m/z | RT | VIP score | OR (95%CI)a | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| γ-Aminobutanoate | Amino Acid | 104.0711 | 0.81 | 2.31 | 0.65 (0.37–1.06) | 0.0965 |
| Threonine | Amino Acid | 120.0654 | 1.01 | 2.44 | 0.54 (0.31–0.91) | 0.0256 |
| L-Cysteine | Amino Acid | 122.0267 | 0.76 | 1.77 | 0.44 (0.22–0.79) | 0.0115b |
| Taurine | Amino Acid | 124.0072 | 0.72 | 2.51 | 1.99 (1.21–3.44) | 0.0086b |
| L-Glutamic acid | Amino Acid | 146.0458 | 0.76 | 1.63 | 2.18 (1.3–3.94) | 0.0055b |
| Stachydrine | Amino Acid Derivative | 144.1017 | 1.23 | 2.92 | 0.5 (0.29–0.84) | 0.0104b |
| Formylkynurenine | Amino Acid Derivative | 237.0865 | 10.71 | 1.90 | 2.51 (1.35–5.16) | 0.0065b |
| Isovalerylcarnitine | Lipid | 246.1695 | 8.19 | 2.30 | 0.48 (0.26–0.82) | 0.0105b |
| Ursodeoxycholic acid | Lipid | 357.278 | 11.53 | 1.30 | 2.69 (1.48–5.41) | 0.0025b |
| LysoPE (16:0) | Lipid | 452.2782 | 13.42 | 2.08 | 1.48 (0.93–2.45) | 0.1036 |
| Cholic acid | Lipid | 453.2858 | 11.21 | 2.20 | 0.62 (0.36–1.00) | 0.0557 |
| Tauroursodeoxycholic acid | Lipid | 498.2894 | 9.99 | 1.65 | 2.18 (1.3–3.88) | 0.0049b |
| Succinate | Organic Acid | 117.0202 | 2.23 | 1.75 | 2.09 (1.23–3.73) | 0.0085b |
| N-Acetylneuraminic acid | Organic Acid | 308.0989 | 0.79 | 2.40 | 2.15 (1.25–3.98) | 0.0092b |
CI Confidence interval, RT Retention time, VIP Variable importance in projection
aAssociated with one unit increase in the metabolite
bFDR q values ≤0.2
Fig. 2ROC curves of predictive models. ROC receiver operating characteristic. Model 1: traditional risk factors including age, age2, body mass index, current smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, and dairy intake; Model 2: Model 1 + the PLS-DA-derived score generated using γ-aminobutanoate, threonine, taurine, stachydrine, isovalerylcarnitine, lysoPE (16:0), cholic acid, and N-acetylneuraminate; Model 3: Model 1 + individual analysis-derived score generated using L-cysteine, taurine, stachydrine, L-glutamic acid, formylkynurenine, isovalerylcarnitine, ursodeoxycholic acid, tauroursodeoxycholic acid, succinate, and N-acetylneuraminate. Model 4: Model 1 + both methods-derived score generated using all the metabolites identified by the PLS-DA method and individual metabolite analysis
The AUC and comparisons of AUC of the ROC curves from different predictive models
| Predictive models | AUC of the ROC curve (95% CI) | Difference of AUC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: traditional risk factorsa | 0.88 (0.83–0.94) | Reference | – |
| Model 2: Model 1 + PLS-DA-derived scoreb | 0.95 (0.92–0.98) | 0.07 (0.02–0.11) | 0.002 |
| Model 3: Model 1 + Individual analysis-derived scorec | 0.95 (0.92–0.98) | 0.07 (0.03–0.11) | 0.002 |
| Model 4: Model 1 + Both methods-derived scored | 0.97 (0.94–0.99) | 0.08 (0.04–0.13) | 0.0004 |
AUC Area under the curve, CI Confidence interval, PLS-DA Partial least squares-discriminant analysis, ROC Receiver operating characteristic
aIncluding age, age2, body mass index, current smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, and dairy intake
bGenerated using γ-aminobutanoate, threonine, taurine, stachydrine, isovalerylcarnitine, lysoPE (16:0), cholic acid, and N-acetylneuraminate
cGenerated using L-cysteine, taurine, stachydrine, L-glutamic acid, formylkynurenine, isovalerylcarnitine, ursodeoxycholic acid, tauroursodeoxycholic acid, succinate, and N-acetylneuraminate
dGenerated using all the metabolites identified by the PLS-DA method and individual metabolite analysis
Pathway analysis results using the BMD-associated metabolites
| Pathways | Matched Metabolites | Impact | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism | L-Glutamic acid, γ-Aminobutanoate, Succinate | 0.2792 | 0.0001 |
| Butanoate metabolism | L-Glutamic acid, γ-Aminobutanoate, Succinate | 0.02841 | 0.0006 |
| Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism | Taurine, L-Cysteine | 0.33094 | 0.003 |
| Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis | L-Cysteine, L-Glutamic acid, Threonine | 0.05634 | 0.004 |
| Glutathione metabolism | L-Cysteine, L-Glutamic acid | 0.01095 | 0.01 |
| Primary bile acid biosynthesis | Taurine, Cholic acid | 0.00849 | 0.02 |
| Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism | Threonine, L-Cysteine | 0.09661 | 0.02 |