| Literature DB >> 30733683 |
Estelle Pujos-Guillot1,2, Mélanie Pétéra2, Jérémie Jacquemin2, Delphine Centeno2, Bernard Lyan2, Ivan Montoliu3, Dawid Madej4, Barbara Pietruszka4, Cristina Fabbri5, Aurelia Santoro5,6, Anna Brzozowska4, Claudio Franceschi7, Blandine Comte1.
Abstract
Aging is a dynamic process depending on intrinsic and extrinsic factors and its evolution is a continuum of transitions, involving multifaceted processes at multiple levels. It is recognized that frailty and sarcopenia are shared by the major age-related diseases thus contributing to elderly morbidity and mortality. Pre-frailty is still not well understood but it has been associated with global imbalance in several physiological systems, including inflammation, and in nutrition. Due to the complex phenotypes and underlying pathophysiology, the need for robust and multidimensional biomarkers is essential to move toward more personalized care. The objective of the present study was to better characterize the complexity of pre-frailty phenotype using untargeted metabolomics, in order to identify specific biomarkers, and study their stability over time. The approach was based on the NU-AGE project (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01754012) that regrouped 1,250 free-living elderly people (65-79 y.o., men and women), free of major diseases, recruited within five European centers. Half of the volunteers were randomly assigned to an intervention group (1-year Mediterranean type diet). Presence of frailty was assessed by the criteria proposed by Fried et al. (2001). In this study, a sub-cohort consisting in 212 subjects (pre-frail and non-frail) from the Italian and Polish centers were selected for untargeted serum metabolomics at T0 (baseline) and T1 (follow-up). Univariate statistical analyses were performed to identify discriminant metabolites regarding pre-frailty status. Predictive models were then built using linear logistic regression and ROC curve analyses were used to evaluate multivariate models. Metabolomics enabled to discriminate sub-phenotypes of pre-frailty both at the gender level and depending on the pre-frailty progression and reversibility. The best resulting models included four different metabolites for each gender. They showed very good prediction capacity with AUCs of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.87-1) and 0.94 (95% CI = 0.87-1) for men and women, respectively. Additionally, early and/or predictive markers of pre-frailty were identified for both genders and the gender specific models showed also good performance (three metabolites; AUC = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.72-0.93) for men and very good for women (three metabolites; AUC = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.86-0.99). These results open the door, through multivariate strategies, to a possibility of monitoring the disease progression over time at a very early stage.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; elderly; gender differences; pre-frailty; sub-phenotypes; untargeted metabolomics
Year: 2019 PMID: 30733683 PMCID: PMC6353829 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
FIGURE 1Study design and frailty status evolution of the subjects over the 1-year period. One hundred and twenty subjects (60 pre-frail and 60 non-frail) were first randomly selected at baseline among the intervention group from the Italian and Polish centers. In addition, all the remaining incident subjects shifting their frailty status during the follow-up (n = 92; n = 67 non-frail and n = 25 pre-frail) were also selected from the same centers, regardless of their intervention groups. Three sub-groups were defined: Stable subjects, who did not change their frailty status over time [Stable 0 (n = 57; 56 of them followed the NU-AGE diet); Stable 1 (n = 30, all of them followed the diet)], those who changed their status from pre-frail to non-frail [Improvement (n = 52, 29 of them were in the NU-AGE diet group)] and those who changed from non-frail to pre-frail [Degradation (n = 70, 34 of them followed the NU-AGE diet)] over 12 months.
Characteristics of the study population at baseline (T0) stratified by gender and pre-frailty status.
| Men ( | Women ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-frail | Pre-frail | Corrected | Non-frail | Pre-frail | Corrected | |
| Number of subjects | 60 | 31 | – | 67 | 54 | – |
| Age (years) | 71.2 ± 3.9 | 72.7 ± 3.6 | 0.36 | 70.6 ± 3.8 | 71.7 ± 3.7 | 0.66 |
| Frailty criteria ( | ||||||
| Weakness | – | 16 (51.6) | – | 27 (50.9) | ||
| Shrinking | – | 7 (22.6) | – | 15 (9.4) | ||
| Endurance | – | 6 (19.3) | – | 20 (37.7) | ||
| Low activity | – | 5 (16.1) | – | 10 (18.9) | ||
| Slowness | – | 1 (3.2) | – | 2 (3.8) | ||
| SPPB score | 11.6 ± 0.8 | 11.3 ± 0.8 | 0.47 | 11.3 ± 1.2 | 10.8 ± 1.5 | 0.33 |
| Hand grip test measure (kg) | 39.9 ± 6.2 | 32.9 ± 8.2 | 24.6 ± 3.8 | 20.8 ± 5.6 | ||
| Gait speed (sec) | 3.6 ± 0.6 | 3.9 ± 1.0 | 0.44 | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 4.2 ± 1.1 | 0.13 |
| Body Mass Index (BMI, kg/m2) | 27.3 ± 4.0 | 28.2 ± 3.6 | 0.70 | 27.0 ± 3.9 | 28.5 ± 3.9 | 0.34 |
| Whole body weight (kg) | 81.5 ± 14.1 | 83.6 ± 13.8 | 0.78 | 68.5 ± 10.7 | 70.9 ± 12.3 ( | 0.68 |
| Body fat mass (kg) | 24.7 ± 8.9 | 26.4 ± 8.6 | 0.74 | 28.4 ± 8.2 | 30.6 ± 8.8 ( | 0.68 |
| Body lean mass (kg) | 53.8 ± 6.5 | 54.1 ± 6.3 | 0.91 | 37.9 ± 3.7 | 38.2 ± 4.6 ( | 0.97 |
FIGURE 2Volcano plots of significant ions for pre-frailty status at baseline in the stable population (A: males and B: females) and in subjects who improved their frailty status (C: males and D: females). ANOVA with country as cofactor; p-values corrected for multiple testing (Benjamini-Hochberg) < 0.05. The dot lines represent the p-value cut-off used for the logistic regression analyses (p-values < 10-2).
Regression models for the prediction of pre-frailty status at baseline from serum metabolomics data.
| Model | Variables | Coefficient β | Standard error | Pr(>| z|) | Odd ratios (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Constant offset β0 | 5.9 | 2.3 | 0.010 | |
| Glutamine | 6.6 × 10-4 | 2.6 × 10-4 | 0.011 | 1.0007 (1.0002–1.0012) | |
| Gly-Phe | –1.8 × 10-3 | 7.6 × 10-4 | 0.018 | 0.998 (0.997–0.9997) | |
| Dimethyloxazole | –1.8 × 10-3 | 8.3 × 10-4 | 0.028 | 0.998 (0.997–0.9998) | |
| Mannose | –1.3 × 10-3 | 5.2 × 10-4 | 0.012 | 0.999 (0.998–0.9997) | |
| Women | Constant offset β0 | 14.7 | 5.0 | 0.003 | |
| Threonine | 4.1 × 10-4 | 1.5 × 10-4 | 0.007 | 1.0004 (1.0001–1.0007) | |
| Fructose | –1.7 × 10-3 | 5.9 × 10-4 | 0.004 | 0.998 (0.997–0.9994) | |
| Mannose | –1.3 × 10-3 | 5.0 × 10-4 | 0.009 | 0.999 (0.998–0.9997) | |
| –1.4 × 10-3 | 6.8 × 10-4 | 0.033 | 0.999 (0.997–0.9999) |
FIGURE 3ROC curve of the best multivariate prediction models of pre-frailty status at baseline (A: males and B: females) and box-plots of the error rate corresponding to the 100 cross-validated models (C: males and D: females). Data from serum metabolomics at baseline, of subjects who improved their pre-frailty status (n = 52) versus stable non-frail individuals (n = 57).
Performance of the best multivariate regression models for the prediction of pre-frailty status at baseline from serum metabolomics data.
| Model | AUC (95% CI) | Sensibility (%) | Specificity (%) | Error rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 0.93 (0.87-1) | 81% | 87% | 15% |
| Women | 0.94 (0.87-1) | 85% | 87% | 14% |
FIGURE 4Boxplots of the ‘light’ pre-frailty biomarkers discovered at baseline in subjects who will improve their status (Improvement; n = 52) and valid at follow-up in subjects who just worsened it (Degradation; n = 70). Blue color: men’s data; red color: women’s data (a.u, arbitrary units).
FIGURE 5Volcano plots of early pre-frailty markers. Significant ions at baseline in subjects (A: males and B: females) who worsened their frailty status over time (Degradation) versus stable non-frail subjects. ANOVA with country as cofactor; p-values corrected for multiple testing (Benjamini-Hochberg) < 0.05. The dot lines represent the p-value cut-off used for the logistic regression analyses (p-values < 10-2).
Best multivariate regression models for the prediction of evolution toward pre-frailty from serum metabolomics data at baseline.
| Model | Variables | Coefficient β | Standard error | Pr(>|z|) | Odd ratios (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | Constant offset β0 | –0.2 | 1.1 | 0.85 | |
| Dimethyloxazole | –1.5 × 10-3 | 5.5 × 10-4 | 0.007 | 0.998 (0.997–0.9996) | |
| Glutamine | 3.7 × 10-4 | 1.8 × 10-4 | 0.038 | 1.0004 (1.000–1.0007) | |
| Isovalerylcarnitine | 6.3 × 10-4 | 2.7 × 10-4 | 0.018 | 1.0006 (1.000–1.0011) | |
| Women | Constant offset β0 | 4.2 | 1.5 | 0.005 | |
| Dihydroxyphenyl acetic acid | –9.0 × 10-4 | 2.7 × 10-4 | 0.001 | 0.999 (0.998–0.9996) | |
| Threonine | 2.9 × 10-4 | 1.0 × 10-4 | 0.004 | 1.0003 (1.000–1.0005) | |
| Mannose | –1.2 × 10-3 | 4.8 × 10-4 | 0.010 | 0.999 (0.998–0.9997) |
FIGURE 6ROC curve of the best multivariate prediction models of evolution toward pre-frailty (A: males and B: females) and box-plots of the error rate corresponding to the 100 cross-validated models (C: males and D: females).
Performance of regression models for the prediction of the evolution toward pre-frailty from serum metabolomics data at baseline.
| Model | AUC (95% CI) | Sensibility (%) | Specificity (%) | Error rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Men | 0.82 (0.72–0.93) | 71% | 83% | 30% |
| Women | 0.92 (0.86–0.99) | 83% | 84% | 16% |