| Literature DB >> 30242179 |
Alen Lovric1, Marit Granér2, Elias Bjornson3,4, Muhammad Arif1, Rui Benfeitas1, Kristofer Nyman5, Marcus Ståhlman4, Markku O Pentikäinen2, Jesper Lundbom5, Antti Hakkarainen5, Reijo Sirén6, Markku S Nieminen2, Nina Lundbom5, Kirsi Lauerma5, Marja-Riitta Taskinen7, Adil Mardinoglu8,9, Jan Boren10.
Abstract
Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is recognized as a liver manifestation of metabolic syndrome, accompanied with excessive fat accumulation in the liver and other vital organs. Ectopic fat accumulation was previously associated with negative effects at the systemic and local level in the human body. Thus, we aimed to identify and assess the predictive capability of novel potential metabolic biomarkers for ectopic fat depots in non-diabetic men with NAFLD, using the inflammation-associated proteome, lipidome and metabolome. Myocardial and hepatic triglycerides were measured with magnetic spectroscopy while function of left ventricle, pericardial and epicardial fat, subcutaneous and visceral adipose tissue were measured with magnetic resonance imaging. Measured ectopic fat depots were profiled and predicted using a Random Forest algorithm, and by estimating the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves. We have identified distinct metabolic signatures of fat depots in the liver (TAG50:1, glutamate, diSM18:0 and CE20:3), pericardium (N-palmitoyl-sphinganine, HGF, diSM18:0, glutamate, and TNFSF14), epicardium (sphingomyelin, CE20:3, PC38:3 and TNFSF14), and myocardium (CE20:3, LAPTGF-β1, glutamate and glucose). Our analyses highlighted non-invasive biomarkers that accurately predict ectopic fat depots, and reflect their distinct metabolic signatures in subjects with NAFLD.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30242179 PMCID: PMC6155005 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-31865-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Heatmap visualization based on Spearman correlation between variables of interest (column wise) and clinical parameters (row wise). Colour key indicates strength of a relationship: blue colour – negative relationship, red colour – positive relationship. *Significant relationship after FDR correction and significance level of 0.05.
Figure 2Heatmap visualization based on Spearman correlation between variables of interest (column wise) and inflammation-associated proteome (row wise). Colour key indicates strength of a relationship: blue colour – negative relationship, red colour – positive relationship. *Significant relationship after FDR correction and significance level of 0.05.
Figure 3Heatmap visualization based on Spearman correlation between variables of interest (column wise) and lipidome (row wise). Colour key indicates strength of a relationship: blue color – negative relationship, red colour – positive relationship. *Significant relationship after FDR correction and significance level of 0.05.
Figure 4Heatmap visualization based on Spearman correlation between variables of interest (column wise) and metabolome (row wise). Colour key indicates strength of a relationship: blue colour – negative relationship, red colour – positive relationship. *Significant relationship after FDR correction and significance level of 0.05.
RF results of top 5 most important biomarkers (mean decrease in accuracy).
| Myocardial TG | Epicardial fat | Pericardial fat | Liver fat |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| LV early diastole | Visceral fat | Waist | Waist |
| Waist | Leptin | Visceral fat | Fasting insulin |
| Weight | Insulin 1 h | Leptin | HOMA-index |
| AFABP | AFABP | Fasting insulin | Visceral fat |
| BMI | Fasting insulin | HOMA-index | Weight |
|
| |||
| FGF 21 | TNFSF 14 | HGF | CDCP1 |
| LAPTGF-β1 | FGF 21 | CDCP1 | FGF 21 |
| IL 18R1 | IL 18R1 | TNFSF 14 | HGF |
| HGF | HGF | TRAIL | IL 18R1 |
| CDCP1 | IL 6 | IL 18R1 | IL 6 |
|
| |||
| CE 20:3 | CE 20:3 | diSM 18:0 | TAG 50:1 |
| TAG 56:4 | PC 38:3 | LPC 18:2 | diSM 18:0 |
| PC 38:3 | LPC 16:1 | PC 38:3 | CE 20:3 |
| LPC 18:2 | TAG 52:1 | LPC 16:0 | SM 18:0 |
| CE 16:1 | CE 18:0 | CE 20:3 | TAG 52:1 |
|
| |||
| Glutamate | *PE (16:0/18:1) | *CER (d18:0/16:0) | Glutamate |
| Glucose | *PI (18:0/20:4) | Glutamate | γ- glutamyl-leucine |
| *DAG (16:0/18:2) | Glutamate | Glucose | *CER (d18:0/16:0) |
| *PE (18:0/20:4) | *PE (18:0/20:4) | *PC (18:0/20:4) | *DAG (16:0/18:2) |
| *PC (16:0/16:1) | *SM (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1) | *SM (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1) | *PE (16:0/18:1) |
*DAG (16:0/18:2) – 1-palmitoyl-3-linoleoyl-glycerol (16:0/18:2); *PE (18:0/20:4) – 1-stearoyl-2-arachidonoyl-GPE (18:0/20:4); *PC (16:0/16:1) – 1-palmitoyl-2-palmitoleoyl-GPC (16:0/16:1); *PE (16:0/18:1) – 1-palmitoyl-2-oleoyl-GPE (16:0/18:1); *PI (18:0/20:4) – 1-stearoyl-2-arachidonoyl-GPI (18:0/20:4); ‘SM (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1) – sphingomyelin (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1); *CER (d18:0/16:0) – N-palmitoyl-sphinganine (d18:0/16:0); *PC (18:0/20:4) – 1-stearoyl-2-arachidonoyl-GPC (18:0/20:4).
ROC analysis of potential biomarkers with the highest AUC scores from analysed datasets.
| Predictors | AUC | 95% confidence interval | SN | SP | Threshold | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower limit | Upper limit | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Waist | 0.905 | 0.810 | 1.000 | 0.92 | 0.84 | 90.5 cm |
| CDCP1 | 0.837 | 0.725 | 0.949 | 0.80 | 0.76 | 3.31 |
| CE 20:3 | 0.858 | 0.748 | 0.967 | 0.88 | 0.80 | 0.804 |
| Glucose | 0.845 | 0.734 | 0.955 | 0.76 | 0.84 | 3.5 × 108 |
|
| ||||||
| Visceral fat | 0.952 | 0.899 | 1.000 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 1373 mm2 |
| IL - 18R1 | 0.853 | 0.748 | 0.957 | 0.84 | 0.80 | 6.69 |
| CE 20:3 | 0.888 | 0.793 | 0.983 | 0.92 | 0.76 | 0.832 |
| *PE (18:0/20:4) | 0.850 | 0.734 | 0.965 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 6.5 × 105 |
|
| ||||||
| Waist | 0.975 | 0.927 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.92 | 93 cm |
| HGF | 0.963 | 0.919 | 1.000 | 0.96 | 0.88 | 6.79 |
| diSM 18:0 | 0.938 | 0.864 | 1.000 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.225 |
| *CER (d18:0/16:0) | 0.942 | 0.869 | 1.000 | 1.00 | 0.8 | 8.7 × 105 |
|
| ||||||
| Visceral fat | 0.984 | 0.960 | 1.000 | 0.92 | 0.96 | 1588.5 mm2 |
| CDCP1 | 0.926 | 0.844 | 1.000 | 0.84 | 0.96 | 3.50 |
| diSM 18:0 | 0.963 | 0.917 | 1.000 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.226 |
| Glutamate | 0.946 | 0.874 | 1.000 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 2.9 × 108 |
Unless otherwise stated, all threshold values represent relative units. *PE (18:0/20:4) – 1-stearoyl-2-arachidonoyl-GPE (18:0/20:4); *CER (d18:0/16:0) – N-palmitoyl-sphinganine (d18:0/16:0).
Figure 5RF analysis (combined dataset) – variable importance based on mean decrease in accuracy for liver, pericardial, epicardial and myocardial fat.