| Literature DB >> 30733685 |
Tobias Konz1, Aurelia Santoro2,3, Laurence Goulet1, Alberto Bazzocchi4, Giuseppe Battista2, Claudio Nicoletti5,6, Fawzi Kadi7, Rita Ostan2,3, Michael Goy8, Caroline Monnard1, François-Pierre Martin8, Jerome N Feige8, Claudio Franceschi2,9, Serge Rezzi1.
Abstract
The intake of adequate amounts and types of nutrients is key for sustaining health and a good quality of life, particularly in the elderly population. There is considerable evidence suggesting that physiological changes related to age and sex modify nutritional needs, and this may be related to age-associated changes in body composition (BC), specifically in lean and fat body mass. However, there is a clear lack of understanding about the association of nutrients in blood and BC parameters in the elderly. This study investigated the relationships among blood nutrients (amino acids, fatty acids, major elements, trace-elements, and vitamins), BC and nutrient intake in a population of 176 healthy male and female Italian adults between the ages of 65 and 79 years. 89 blood markers, 77 BC parameters and dietary intake were evaluated. Multivariate data analysis was applied to infer relationships between datasets. As expected, the major variability between BC and the blood nutrient profile (BNP) observed was related to sex. Aside from clear sex-specific differences in BC, female subjects had higher BNP levels of copper, copper-to-zinc ratio, phosphorous and holotranscobalamin II and lower concentrations of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs) and proline. Fat mass, percentage of fat mass, percentage of lean mass and the skeletal muscle index (SMI) correlated the most with BNP in both sexes. Our data showed positive correlations in male subjects among ethanolamine, glycine, albumin, and sulfur with SMI, while palmitoleic acid and oleic acid exhibited negative correlations. This differed in female subjects, where SMI was positively associated with albumin, folic acid and sulfur, while CRP, proline and cis-8,11,14-eicosatrienoic acid were negatively correlated. We investigated the influence of diet on the observed BNP and BC correlations. Intriguingly, most of the components of the BNP, except for folate, did not exhibit a correlation with nutrient intake data. An understanding of the physiological and biochemical processes underpinning the observed sex-specific correlations between BNP and BC could help in identifying nutritional strategies to manage BC-changes in aging. This would contribute to a deeper understanding of aging-associated nutritional needs with the aim of helping the elderly population to maintain metabolic health.Entities:
Keywords: body composition; elderly; fatty acids; minerals; nutrient profiling; nutritional status; trace elements; vitamins
Year: 2019 PMID: 30733685 PMCID: PMC6353856 DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01935
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Physiol ISSN: 1664-042X Impact factor: 4.566
Population characteristics.
| Variable | Males ( | Females ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 73 (65, 79) | 72 (65, 79) | 0.44 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.3 (18.7, 41.6) | 26.1 (18.8, 44.6) | 0.30 |
| Height (m) | 1.72 (1.49, 1.87) | 1.59 (1.13, 1.77) | 5.23E-24 |
| Waist (cm) | 97.7 (78.0, 125.5) | 87.2 (65.0, 120.0) | 4.08E-11 |
| Hip (cm) | 101.5 (84.5, 121.0) | 101.0 (86.0, 128.2) | 0.33 |
| ALMI (kg/m2) | 8.22 (6.45, 10.96) | 6.45 (4.88, 11.20) | 5.62E-24 |
| LMI (kg/m2) | 17.83 (15.11, 24.57) | 14.92 (12.03, 25.28) | 1.46E-21 |
| SMI | 0.30 (0.26, 0.36) | 0.25 (0.18, 0.32) | 5.05E-29 |
| FMI (kg/m2) | 8.71 (2.85, 16.80) | 10.86 (3.92, 18.90) | 2.54E-07 |
| Whole-body weight (kg) | 80.551 (55.02, 112.15) | 65.8 (45.79, 98.07) | 2.39E-14 |
| Percentage of fat mass | 31.91 (14.78, 42.77) | 40.56 (20.71, 55.43) | 1.97E-18 |
| Percentage of lean mass | 64.64 (54.74, 81.04) | 56.47 (42.05, 75.66) | 5.81E-18 |
| Whole-body BMD | 1.16 (0.89, 1.41) | 0.96 (0.68, 1.33) | 9.24E-26 |
Comparison of mean daily intake (values normalized to body weight) of energy and nutrients between men and women.
| Normalized to whole-body weight (kg) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Male ( | Female ( | ||||
| Meana | Meana | ||||
| Total energy (kcal) | 24.28 | 6.06 | 24.49 | 6.26 | 0.858 |
| Total carbohydrates (g) | 3.12 | 0.86 | 3.20 | 1.02 | 0.936 |
| Total fats (g) | 0.85 | 0.26 | 0.88 | 0.23 | 0.273 |
| Total saturated fatty acids (g) | 0.26 | 0.08 | 0.28 | 0.08 | 0.218 |
| Total MUFAc (g) | 0.38 | 0.13 | 0.40 | 0.12 | 0.446 |
| Total PUFAd (g) | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.441 |
| ω-3 PUFA (g) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.557 |
| ω-6 PUFA (g) | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.376 |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 2.77 | 0.90 | 2.92 | 1.03 | 0.471 |
| Total proteins (g) | 0.93 | 0.23 | 0.97 | 0.23 | 0.196 |
| Animal proteins (g) | 0.44 | 0.15 | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.182 |
| Vegetal proteins (g) | 0.35 | 0.14 | 0.35 | 0.15 | 0.432 |
| Total dietary fiber (g) | 0.30 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.15 | 0.368 |
| Starch (g) | 1.38 | 0.53 | 1.43 | 0.58 | 0.609 |
| Water (g) | 24.13 | 8.80 | 29.09 | 9.98 | 0.001 |
| Biotin (mg) | 0.25 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.197 |
| Folic acid (μg) | 3.72 | 1.67 | 4.76 | 2.23 | 0.003 |
| β-carotene (μg) | 23.15 | 15.93 | 26.72 | 20.67 | 0.396 |
| Vitamin B1 (mg) | 0.03 | 0.13 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.296 |
| Vitamin B2 (mg) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.013 |
| Vitamin B3 (mg) | 0.25 | 0.10 | 0.31 | 0.19 | 0.018 |
| Vitamin B5 (mg) | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.148 |
| Vitamin B6 (mg) | 0.04 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.061 |
| Vitamin B12 (μg) | 0.13 | 0.64 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.793 |
| Vitamin A (μg) | 12.99 | 10.34 | 16.08 | 12.57 | 0.029 |
| Vitamin C (mg) | 1.86 | 1.56 | 2.11 | 1.26 | 0.020 |
| Vitamin D (μg) | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.26 | 0.84 | <0.001 |
| Vitamin E (mg) | 0.20 | 0.58 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.367 |
| Calcium (mg) | 9.94 | 3.96 | 13.10 | 6.52 | <0.001 |
| Copper (mg) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.86 | 0.535 |
| Iron (mg) | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.17 | 0.08 | 0.858 |
| Iodine (μg) | 1.63 | 0.79 | 1.78 | 0.77 | 0.083 |
| Potassium (mg) | 38.80 | 12.20 | 40.44 | 12.65 | 0.471 |
| Magnesium (mg) | 3.37 | 1.24 | 3.87 | 1.65 | 0.055 |
| Manganese (mg) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.518 |
| Phosphorus (mg) | 16.58 | 5.16 | 17.75 | 6.96 | 0.443 |
| Selenium (μg) | 0.52 | 0.28 | 0.58 | 0.34 | 0.268 |
| Sodium (mg) | 24.07 | 8.80 | 24.83 | 8.42 | 0.507 |
| Zinc (mg) | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.05 | 0.073 |
FIGURE 1Blood nutrient dataset showed clear separation of sexes. The application of orthogonal corrected partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) to the data set exhibited good predictability of sex from BNP values, as indicated by a cumulative Q2Y value of 0.579. Blue triangles correspond to male and red triangles to female individuals.
FIGURE 2Significant blood nutrient parameters that contribute to sex differences. Representation of variable of influence (VIP) vs. R score. The V-plot was applied to identify the most significant variables (BNP) contributing to the differences driven by sex. Statistically significant variables at the 99% confidence interval were selected using a VIP threshold of 1.5 and r ≥ 0.2. Female BNP were marked by higher values of Cu, Cu/Zn, P, and holotranscobalamin II (active B12) and lower concentrations of isoleucine, leucine, valine, proline and, to a minor degree, homocysteine.
FIGURE 3Sex-specific differences in blood nutrients. Box plots representing the concentration of selected blood nutrients in male and female populations (N = 83 males and 93 females). Statistics with an unpaired Student’s t-test (p-value is depicted above the box plot). Concentration of (A) leucine, (B) isoleucine, (C) valine, (D) proline, (E) phosphorus, (F) copper, (G) the ratio between the concentrations of copper and zinc and (H) holotranscobalamin II in the two populations.
Summary of statistical characteristics of BC and BNP OPLS models.
| Male subjects | Female subjects | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC parameter | R2X (cum) | R2Y (cum) | Q2Y (cum) | R2X (cum) | R2Y (cum) | Q2Y (cum) |
| Whole-body weight | 0.27 | 0.55 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.43 | 0.06 |
| Whole-body fat mass | 0.28 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.26 | 0.51 | 0.2 |
| Whole-body percentage of fat mass | 0.39 | 0.64 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.3 |
| Whole-body percentage of lean mass | 0.28 | 0.57 | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.57 | 0.3 |
| FMI | 0.28 | 0.58 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 0.47 | 0.17 |
| SMI | 0.27 | 0.55 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.53 | 0.22 |
| Android fat mass | 0.28 | 0.58 | 0.37 | 0.26 | 0.54 | 0.25 |
| Gynoid fat mass | 0.38 | 0.66 | 0.35 | 0.26 | 0.44 | 0.06 |
Blood profiling signatures associated with body composition parameters in male and female subjects.
| Males | Females | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BC parameter | Positively correlated | Negatively correlated | Positively correlated | Negatively correlated | ||
| 1 | Whole-body weight | Whole-body level | Myristic acid, palmitoleic acid | Ethanolamine, glycine, Cu, glutamine, serine | CRP, proline, isoleucine, valine | Albumin, folic acid |
| 2 | Whole-body fat mass | Myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, linoelaidic acid | Ethanolamine, glycine, albumin | CRP, proline, isoleucine, valine, myristoleic acid | Albumin, folic acid | |
| 3 | Whole-body percentage of fat mass | Palmitoleic acid, oleic acid | Ethanolamine, glycine, Mg | CRP, proline | Albumin, folic acid | |
| 4 | FMI | Myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, linoelaidic acid | Ethanolamine, glycine | CRP, proline, myristoleic acid, palmitoleic acid | Folic acid | |
| 5 | Whole-body percentage of lean mass | Ethanolamine∗, glycine∗ | Myristic acid, palmitic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, oleic acid isomer (n-9 | Albumin, folic acid | CRP, proline | |
| 6 | SMI | Region-specific level | Ethanolamine, glycine, albumin, S | Palmitoleic acid, oleic acid | Albumin, folic acid, S | CRP, proline, |
| 7 | Android fat mass | Myristic acid, palmitic acid, palmitoleic acid, oleic acid, oleic acid isomer (n-9 | Glycine | CRP, proline, isoleucine, valine, myristoleic acid | Folic acid | |
| 8 | Gynoid fat mass | Palmitoleic acid | Ethanolamine, glycine, serine | CRP, proline | Albumin, folic acid, S, Se | |
FIGURE 4Correlation of glycine, ethanolamine, myristic acid and palmitoleic acid with whole- body fat mass. Significant correlations of (A) glycine, (B) ethanolamine, (C) myristic acid, and (D) palmitoleic acid with whole-body fat mass were observed in males but not in females. Pearson’s correlations (r) as well as two-tailed p-values are shown. N = 83 (males) and N = 93 (females). Each dot represents an individual sample. Red dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval.
FIGURE 5Correlation of glycine, ethanolamine, palmitoleic acid, and SMI. Significant correlations of (A) glycine, (B) ethanolamine, (C) palmitoleic acid, and (D) sulfur with SMI were observed in males but not in females. Pearson’s correlations (r) as well as two-tailed p-values are shown. N = 83 (males) and N = 93 (females). Each dot represents an individual sample. Red dotted lines show 95% confidence interval.
FIGURE 6Correlation of albumin, CRP, folates, and proline with whole-body fat mass. The data set showed significant correlations of (A) albumin, (B) CRP, (C) folates, and (D) proline with whole-body fat mass in females but not in males (with the exception of albumin that exhibits a negative correlation with whole-body fat mass in both sexes). Pearson’s correlations (r) as well as two-tailed p-value are shown. N = 83 (males) and N = 93 (females). Each dot represents an individual sample. Red dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval.
FIGURE 7Correlation of albumin, CRP, folates, and proline with SMI. Significant correlations of (A) albumin, (B) CRP, (C) folates, and (D) proline with SMI in females but not in males (with the exception of albumin that exhibits a positive correlation with SMI in both sexes). Pearson’ correlations (r) as well as two-tailed p-values are shown. N = 83 (males) and N = 93 (females). Each dot represents an individual sample. Red dotted lines show the 95% confidence interval.