| Literature DB >> 30577665 |
Chi-Jen Lo1, Hsiang-Yu Tang2, Cheng-Yu Huang3, Chih-Ming Lin4,5,6, Hung-Yao Ho7,8,9, Ming-Shi Shiao10,11, Mei-Ling Cheng12,13,14.
Abstract
Aging is a complex progression of biological processes and is the causal contributor to the development of diabetes mellitus (DM). DM is the most common degenerative disease and is the fifth leading cause of death in Taiwan, where the trend of DM mortality has been steadily increasing. Metabolomics, important branch of systems biology, has been mainly utilized to understand endogenous metabolites in biological systems and their dynamic changes as they relate to endogenous and exogenous factors. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the metabolomic profiles in elderly people and its relation to lipid disorder (LD). We collected 486 elderly individuals aged ≥65 years and performed untargeted and targeted metabolite analysis using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS). Several metabolites, including branched-chain amino acids, alanine, glutamate and alpha-aminoadipic acid were elevated in LD compared to the control group. Based on multivariate analysis, four metabolites were selected in the best model to predict DM progression: phosphatidylcholine acyl-alkyl (PC ae) C34:3, PC ae C44:3, SM C24:1 and PCae C36:3. The combined area under the curve (AUC) of those metabolites (0.82) was better for DM classification than individual values. This study found that targeted metabolic signatures not only distinguish the LD within the control group but also differentiated DM from LD in elderly Taiwanese. These metabolites could indicate the nutritional status and act as potential metabolic biomarkers for the elderly in Taiwan.Entities:
Keywords: diabetes mellitus; elderly; lipid disorder; metabolomics
Year: 2018 PMID: 30577665 PMCID: PMC6352219 DOI: 10.3390/jcm8010013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1Flow diagram of study selection for metabolite analysis. Plasma samples from all participants were collected during their health examination and analyzed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy and liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry (LC/MS). Initially, for untargeted metabolomic analysis, the plasma from 423 participants was analyzed. The targeted metabolite analysis was performed for 82 participants, including 43 normal controls and 39 lipid disorder (LD) participants. Abnormal values of HDL-C and TG define LD. Participants whose blood glucose level was higher than 300 mg/dL or whose BMI >35 or <15 were excluded from the normal control and LD groups.
Demographic and laboratory data for an elderly Taiwanese population.
| ID | All | Control | LD | Other | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 81.2 ± 7.1 | 80.1 ± 7.3 | 79.8 ± 7.7 | 81.6 ± 7.0 | 0.8291 |
| Height (cm) | 157.6 ± 8.7 | 157.1 ± 8.0 | 154.6 ± 7.7 | 158.1 ± 8.8 | 0.1064 |
| Weight (kg) | 57.9 ± 10.8 | 49.8 ± 8.0 | 62.0 ± 11.8 | 58.6 ± 10.4 | <0.001 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.2 ± 3.5 | 20.1 ± 2.4 | 25.8 ± 3.9 | 23.3 ± 3.2 | <0.001 |
| Waist circumference (cm) | 86.8 ± 9.9 | 75.7 ± 5.1 | 91.9 ± 11.7 | 87.8 ± 9.1 | <0.001 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 134.5 ± 20.8 | 115.6 ± 8.6 | 139.4 ± 21.0 | 136.7 ± 20.6 | <0.001 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 72.0 ± 10.0 | 66.1 ± 8.0 | 72.8 ± 13.7 | 72.8 ± 9.4 | 0.0036 |
| Glucose (mg/dL) | 99.0 ± 18.1 | 87.6 ± 6.6 | 110.2 ± 27.6 | 99.2 ± 16.8 | <0.001 |
| Hb-A1c (%) | 6.0 ± 0.7 | 5.6 ± 0.3 | 6.4 ± 0.8 | 6.0 ± 0.7 | <0.001 |
| T-cholesterol (mg/dL) | 184.7 ± 35.4 | 195.4 ± 33.2 | 193.9 ± 40.5 | 181.9 ± 34.5 | 0.8275 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 102.9 ± 53.5 | 80.3 ± 27.9 | 212.2 ± 57.7 | 92.2 ± 37.3 | <0.001 |
| HDL-C (mg/dL) | 54.1 ± 13.7 | 62.2 ± 12.2 | 40.4 ± 5.4 | 54.7 ± 13.4 | <0.001 |
| LDL-C (mg/dL) | 107.4 ± 29.4 | 112.8 ± 28.6 | 109.8 ± 35.8 | 106.2 ± 28.6 | 0.6296 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 4.3 ± 0.2 | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 4.3 ± 0.3 | 0.0001 |
| Total protein (g/dL) | 7.0 ± 0.4 | 6.9 ± 0.4 | 7.2 ± 0.4 | 7.0 ± 0.4 | 0.0005 |
| AST/GOT (U/L) | 27.0 ± 11.4 | 29.1 ± 18.3 | 27.2 ± 10.4 | 26.6 ± 10.2 | 0.5050 |
| ALT/GPT (U/L) | 19.3 ± 13.6 | 18.1 ± 17.0 | 21.3 ± 10.2 | 19.2 ± 13.5 | 0.2447 |
| ALK-P (U/L) | 66.2 ± 21.1 | 63.2 ± 19.0 | 67.3 ± 22.2 | 66.5 ± 21.3 | 0.3043 |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 0.0036 |
| BUN (mg/dL) | 17.9 ± 7.4 | 16.2 ± 4.4 | 20.9 ± 10.6 | 17.8 ± 7.2 | 0.0051 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.7 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.0473 |
| Uric acid (mg/dL) | 5.7 ± 1.5 | 5.0 ± 1.3 | 6.7 ± 2.0 | 5.7 ± 1.5 | <0.001 |
| Hypertension (%) | 62.6 (304) | 38.6 (22) | 77.6 (38) | 64.2 (244) | <0.001 |
| Hyperlipidemia (%) | 29.8 (145) | 15.8 (9) | 44.9 (22) | 30.0 (114) | 0.0012 |
| Metabolic syndrome (%) | 28.6 (139) | 0 (0) | 95.9 (47) | 24.2 (92) | <0.001 |
| DM (%) | 24.3 (118) | 5.3 (3) | 49.0 (24) | 23.9 (91) | <0.001 |
| CAD (%) | 7.6 (37) | 0 (0) | 10.2 (5) | 8.4 (32) | 0.0237 |
| Stroke (%) | 7.6 (37) | 5.3 (3) | 10.2 (5) | 7.6 (29) | 0.3530 |
| CKD (%) | 9.9 (48) | 3.5 (2) | 22.4 (11) | 9.2 (35) | 0.0049 |
Data are mean ± SD. Variables were analyzed by independent sample t-tests between the control and LD groups. LD, lipid disorder; DM, diabetes mellitus; CAD, coronary artery disease; CKD, chronic kidney disease.
Figure 2Metabolites were significantly different between the control and lipid disorder (LD) groups. The metabolic profile of the plasma from elderly people was analyzed with nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot showing progressive change from 47 control (green), 333 other (blue) and 43 LD (red) participants, respectively; (B) Orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) showing metabolites can clearly discriminate the control and LD groups; (C) OPLS-DA coefficient loading plots derived from 1H NMR spectra of the control and LD groups. The coefficient values above zero (upper section) represent levels of metabolites that were higher in LD group than control group. The color bar corresponds to the absolute value of the correlation loading in the discrimination model, represent metabolites that were more prevalent in the LD group.
Figure 3Targeted metabolites were significantly different between control, lipid disorder (LD) and LD with diabetes mellitus (DM) groups. Metabolites in 40 control participants, 3 control with DM participants, 20 LD participants and 19 LD with DM participants were validated with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. (A) Principal component analysis (PCA) and (B) orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) score plots demonstrated a considerable separation between control, LD and LD with DM groups, however the control with DM group could not be separated from the other groups; (C) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the predictive model. A combination metabolite model calculated from the logistic regression analysis; (D) A schematic diagram illustrating how metabolites change following DM progression from control; metabolites marked in blue refer to those which decreased with DM progression, while metabolites marked in red refer to those which increased with DM progression.
Figure 4Heat map of 47 metabolites were significantly different between control and lipid disorder (LD) group. After adjusting for age, hypertension, CAD, stroke and CKD, 47 of the 154 metabolites were significantly different between the control and LD groups, with a false discovery rate (FDR) to correct the p-value (q < 0.05). Each column represents a plasma sample and each row represents the level of a metabolite.
Figure 5Bar charts of top 10 of 47 metabolites in control (green), lipid disorder (LD) (red) and lipid disorder with DM (LD + DM) (orange). ** q < 0.01; *** q < 0.001 (p-value was adjusted for age, hypertension, CAD, stroke and CKD and was corrected with a false discovery rate (FDR).
Multivariate analysis for DM.
| Variable | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 1.016 (0.924, 1.118) | 0.7421 |
| Lipid disorder | 29.096 (2.635, 321.309) | 0.0059 |
| PC ae C34:3 | 0.488 (0.228, 1.046) | 0.0651 |
| PC ae C44:3 | <0.001 (<0.001, 0.359) | 0.0453 |
| SM C24:1 | 1.024 (1.001, 1.048) | 0.0439 |
| PC ae C36:3 | 3.112 (1.104, 8.771) | 0.0318 |