| Literature DB >> 30374111 |
Lianlian Wang1,2,3,4, Ting-Li Han1,2,3,5, Xiaofang Luo1,2,3, Siming Li6, Tim Young6, Chang Chen1,2,7, Li Wen1,2,3, Ping Xu1,2,3, Yangxi Zheng1,2,3, Richard Saffery8, Philip N Baker1,2,5,9, Chao Tong10,11,12, Hongbo Qi13,14,15.
Abstract
The selective intrauterine growth restriction (sIUGR) of monochorionic diamniotic (MCDC) twins causes phenotypic growth discordance, which is correlated with metabolomic pertubations. A global, untargeted identification of the metabolic fingerprint may help elucidate the etiology of sIUGR. Umbilical cord blood and placentas collected from 15 pairs of sIUGR monochorionic twins, 24 pairs of uncomplicated twins, and 14 singletons diagnosed with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) were subjected to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry based metabolomic analyses. Supervised multivariate regression analysis and pathway analysis were performed to compare control twins with sIUGR twins. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was utilized to explore metabolic differences within sIUGR co-twins. Linear logistic regression was applied to screen metabolites that significantly differed in concentration between control twins and sIUGR twins or IUGR singletons. Umbilical cord blood demonstrated better global metabolomic separation of sIUGR and control twins compared to the placenta. Disrupted amino acid and fatty acid metabolism as well as high levels of exposure to environmental xenobiotics were associated with sIUGR. The metabolic abnormalities in MCDA twins suggested that in utero growth discordance is caused by intrauterine and extrauterine environmental factors, rather than genetics. Thus, this study provides new therapeutic targets and strategies for sIUGR management and prevention.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30374111 PMCID: PMC6206027 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33788-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Comparison of clinical characteristics in the control twin and sIUGR twin groups.
| Characteristics and pregnancy outcomes | sIUGR group (n = 15) | Control group (n = 24) | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal age (years) | 30.0 ± 3.5 | 29.0 ± 3.7 | 0.20a |
|
| 0.91c | ||
| Yes | 9 (60%) | 13 (54.2%) | |
| No | 6 (40%) | 11 (45.8%) | |
| Body mass index (kg/m2 | 21.0 ± 2.5 | 21.0 ± 2.8 | 0.94a |
| Primigravida | 9/15 (60%) | 13/24 (54.2%) | 0.98c |
| Smoking during pregnancy | 0/15 (0%) | 0/24 (0%) | 1.00 |
|
| 1.00c | ||
| IVF-ETe | 1 (6.7%) | 2 (8.3%) | |
| Natural conception | 14 (93.3%) | 22 (91.7%) | |
| Gestational age at delivery (wks) | 35 (34, 37) | 36.5 (35, 37) | 0.07d |
|
| 1.00d | ||
| Cesarean | 15 (100%) | 24 (100%) | |
| Vaginal | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | |
|
| 0.78c | ||
| Male/male | 9 (60%) | 12 (50%) | |
| Female/female | 6 (40%) | 12 (50%) |
aStudent’s T-test. bMann-Whitney U test. cChi-square test. dFisher’s exact test; *p < 0.001. eIVF-ET, In vitro fertilization & embryo transfer.
Comparison of postnatal outcomes in the control twin and sIUGR twin groups.
| Postnatal outcomes | sIUGR group | Control group | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 (n = 15) | T2 (n = 15) | P-Value | T1 (n = 24) | T2 (n = 24) | P-Value | |
| Birth weight (g) | 2560 ± 485 | 1920 ± 454 | 0.002*a | 2675 ± 311 | 2518 ± 295 | 0.08a |
| Amniotic fluid volume (ml) | 500 (500, 600) | 500 (400, 560) | 0.41b | 600 (500, 1000) | 500 (500, 600) | 0.13b |
| Apgar score at 1 min | 9 (9, 10) | 9 (9, 10) | 0.91b | 10 (9, 10) | 10 (9, 10) | 0.77b |
| Apgar score at 5 min | 10 (10, 10) | 10 (10, 10) | 0.53b | 10 (10, 10) | 10 (10, 10) | 1b |
| Apgar score at 10 min | 10 (10, 10) | 10 (10, 10) | 0.31b | 10 (10, 10) | 10 (10, 10) | 1b |
| Birth weight discordance (g) | 530 (470, 560) | 160 (90, 225) | 9.22 × 10−7*b | |||
aStudent’s T-test. bMann-Whitney U test; *P < 0.05. T1, twin 1; T2, twin 2.
Comparison of the clinical characteristics of sIUGR twins and IUGR singleton pregnancies.
| Characteristics | sIUGR group (n = 15) | IUGR group (n = 14) | P-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal age (years) | 30 ± 4 | 30 ± 4 | 0.62a |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 21.0 ± 2.5 | 21.7 ± 2.7 | 0.53a |
| Primigravida | 9/15 (60%) | 8/15 (53%) | 0.58c |
| Smoking | 0/15 (0%) | 0/14 (0%) | 1.00d |
| Gestational age at delivery (wks) | 35 (34, 37) | 38 (37, 38) | 0.0004b** |
|
| 1.00b | ||
| Cesarean | 15 (100%) | 14 (93.3%) | |
| Vaginal | 0 (0%) | 1 (6.7%) | |
|
| 0.14c | ||
| Male | 9 (60%) | 4 (26.7%) | |
| Female | 6 (40%) | 11 (73.3%) | |
| Placenta weight (g) | 656.92 ± 96.12 | 470.67 ± 81.80 | 1.29 × 10−5 a** |
| Placenta volume (cm3) | 962.34 ± 263.63 | 631.32 ± 226.61 | 0.002a* |
| Average birth weight (g) | (2560 ± 486, 1920 ± 454)e | 2253 ± 264 | (0.05, 0.02*)a,f |
aStudent’s T-test. bMann-Whitney U test. cChi-square test. dFisher’s exact test; *P < 0.001; *P < 0.05. eThe first value is the average birth weight of the sIUGR larger twin, and the second value is the average birth weight of the sIUGR smaller twin. fThe first P-value is the significance of the birth weight difference between the IUGR singleton and the sIUGR larger twin; the second value is the significance of the birth weight difference between IUGR singleton and the sIUGR smaller twin.
Figure 1Supervised multivariate classification analysis of the umbilical cord plasma metabolite profiles of control twins and sIUGR twins. (A) Score plot of the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). (B) Validation of the PLS-DA model using permutation. The results are shown as p-values. The blue bars represent the accuracy of the prediction frequencies. (C) Boxplots showing the nine most significant metabolites based on their variable importance in projection scores from the PLS-DA model with their relative concentrations. The green boxes represent the control group, while the red boxes represent the sIGUR group. Unknown 355(100) 73(67.0) 267(68.7) (NIST: Cyclopentasiloxane, decamethyl-, Match: 928, R. Match: 928, Prob: 94.4%).
Figure 2Supervised multivariate classification analysis of the placenta metabolite profiles of control twins and sIUGR twins. (A) Score plot of the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). (B) Validation of the PLS-DA model using permutation. The results are shown as p-values. The blue bars represent the accuracy of the prediction frequencies. (C) Boxplots showing the nine most significant metabolites based on their variable importance in projection scores from the PLS-DA model with their relative concentrations. The green boxes represent the control group, while the red boxes represent the sIGUR group. Unknown 074(100) 429(77.4) 355(44.6) (NIST: Cyclononasiloxane, octadecamethyl, Match: 908, R. Match:910, Prob: 95.2%). Unknown 355(100) 73(67.0) 267(68.7) (NIST: Cyclopentasiloxane, decamethyl, Match: 935, R. Match: 935, Prob: 94.3%).
Figure 3Topological pathway analysis of the umbilical cord plasma (left) and placenta (right) metabolites of control twins and sIUGR twins. The most significant metabolic pathways are indicated by the color and size of the spheres (red = most significant, yellow = least significant) according to their p-values and statistical pathway impact values, analyzed by quantitative enrichment analysis (QEA).
Figure 4Correlation of birth weight discordance within and between twin pairs of umbilical cord plasma metabolites detected from sIUGR and normal twins, analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). The red lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for the correlation of metabolites with weight discordance in the control umbilical cord plasma. The blue lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for the correlation of metabolites with weight discordance in sIUGR umbilical cord plasma. The left column indicates the between-twin pair regression analysis based on average twin pair birth weights, while the right column indicates the within-twin pair regression analysis based on pair differences in birth weight. The center dotted line in each column indicates 0 correlation; metabolites to the right of the dotted line are positively correlated with weight discordance, whereas metabolites to the left of the dotted line are negatively correlated with weight discordance. In addition, the distance between the metabolites and the dotted line represents the strength of the correlation. Metabolites are classified in accordance with their chemical properties, and only the significant metabolites with p-values less than 0.05 are plotted.
Figure 5Correlation of birth weight discordance with placenta metabolites within and between twin pairs from sIUGR and normal twins, analyzed using a generalized estimating equation (GEE). The red lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for the correlation of metabolites with weight discordance in the control placenta. The blue lines represent the 95% confidence intervals for the correlation of metabolites with weight discordance in the sIUGR placenta. The left column indicates the between-twin pair regression analysis based on average twin pair birth weights, while the right column indicates the within-twin pair regression analysis based on pair differences in birth weight. The center dotted line in each column indicates 0 correlation; metabolites to the right of the dotted line are positively correlated with weight discordance, whereas metabolites to the left of the dotted line are negatively correlated with weight discordance. In addition, the distance between the metabolites and the dotted line represents the strength of the correlation. Metabolites are classified in accordance with their chemical properties, and only the significant metabolites with p-values less than 0.05 are plotted.
Figure 6Overall study design. Thirty-nine women with an MCDA pregnancy and 14 singleton IUGR pregnancies were selected. Among the twin births, 15 were identified as having sIUGR, while the other 24 were uncomplicated twin pregnancies. The single fetus group had intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR). Umbilical cord blood and placental tissue samples were collected from the mothers during delivery and analyzed using GC-MS based metabolomics. Comparison 1 investigates the metabolic differences between control twins and sIUGR twins. Comparison 2 explores the phenotypic disparity that exists between sIUGR larger twins and sIUGR smaller twins. Comparison 3 compares IUGR singletons, sIUGR twins, and control twins.