| Literature DB >> 31130958 |
Qiong Zhang1, Xiaofeng Yin1, Haifang Wang1, Xing Wu2, Xin Li1, Yao Li1, Xiaohe Zhang1, Chen Fu1, Haixia Li1, Yurong Qiu1,3.
Abstract
The role of metabolomics in autoimmune diseases has been a rapidly expanding area in researches over the last decade, while its pathophysiologic impact on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) remains poorly elucidated. In this study, we analyzed the metabolic profiling of fecal samples from SLE patients and healthy controls based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography equipped with mass spectrometry for exploring the potential biomarkers of SLE. The results showed that 23 differential metabolites and 5 perturbed pathways were identified between the two groups, including aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis, thiamine metabolism, nitrogen metabolism, tryptophan metabolism, and cyanoamino acid metabolism. In addition, logistic regression and ROC analysis were used to establish a diagnostic model for distinguishing SLE patients from healthy controls. The combined model of fecal PG 27:2 and proline achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.846, and had a good diagnostic efficacy. In the present study, we analyzed the correlations between fecal metabolic perturbations and SLE pathogenesis. In summary, we firstly illustrate the comprehensive metabolic profiles of feces in SLE patients, suggesting that the fecal metabolites could be used as the potential non-invasive biomarkers for SLE.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; feces; liquid chromatography; mass spectrometry; metabolomics; systemic lupus erythematosus
Year: 2019 PMID: 31130958 PMCID: PMC6509220 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Characteristics of the study population.
| Fecal samples | 32 | 26 |
| Female | 100% | 100% |
| Age, years, mean ± SD | 39.44 ± 15.45 | 41.15 ± 12.33 |
| BMI, kg/m2, mean ± SD | 23.08 ± 3.90 | 22.15 ± 3.82 |
| ESR, mm/h, mean (median) | 24.94 (17.50) | |
| CRP, mg/L, mean (median) | 3.21 (0.95) | |
| SLEDAI, median (range) | 6 (0–16) | |
| Positive anti-dsDNA | 31.25% | |
| Positive anti- Sm | 21.88% | |
| Positive ANA | 93.75% | |
| Glucocorticoid | 28 | |
| Hydroxycholorquine | 21 | |
| Cyclophosphamide | 8 | |
| Leflunomide | 4 | |
BMI, body mass index; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C reactive protein; SLEDAI, systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index.
Figure 1Typical mass spectra of the SLE group (A) and HC group (B).
Figure 2Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) of fecal metabolomics data from SLE patients and healthy controls. Fecal metabolites distinguished SLE patients from healthy controls. The green dots represented SLE patients and the red dots represented healthy controls in the two-dimensional PLS-DA score plots.
Figure 3Metabolic patterns in SLE patients and healthy controls. Fecal metabolite profiles in SLE patients and healthy controls were shown as heatmaps. Each row represented data for a specific metabolite and each column represented an individual. Different colors corresponded to the different intensity level of metabolites. Red and blue colors represented increased and decreased levels of metabolites, respectively.
Fecal identified differential metabolites between SLE patients and healthy controls.
| Proline | 0.002 | 2.08 | 1.94 | Amino acid metabolism |
| L-Tyrosine | 0.007 | 1.79 | 3.50 | Amino acid metabolism |
| L-Methionine | 0.015 | 1.63 | 3.27 | Amino acid metabolism |
| L-Asparagine | 0.037 | 1.40 | 2.78 | Amino acid metabolism |
| Dl-Pipecolinic acid | 0.033 | 1.43 | 1.50 | Amino acid metabolism |
| Glycyl-L-Proline | 0.014 | 1.64 | 2.30 | Amino acid metabolism |
| D-Ala-D-ala | 0.022 | 1.54 | 0.63 | Amino acid metabolism |
| L-Carnosine | 0.010 | 1.72 | 2.03 | Amino acid metabolism |
| Xanthurenic acid | 0.004 | 1.90 | 2.20 | Amino acid metabolism |
| Kynurenic acid | 0.025 | 1.51 | 1.39 | Amino acid metabolism |
| Lauryl diethanolamide | 0.028 | 1.48 | 0.75 | Fatty acid metabolism |
| 1,2-Dioleoyl-Rac-Glycerol | 0.004 | 1.90 | 3.64 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| MG 22:6 | 0.049 | 1.33 | 1.14 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| MG 16:5 | 0.018 | 1.59 | 1.14 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| SQDG 26:5 | 0.005 | 1.87 | 0.56 | Glycerolipid metabolism |
| lysoPE 16:0 | 0.025 | 1.51 | 1.87 | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| lysoPC 22:5 | 0.002 | 2.05 | 2.00 | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| PG 27:2 | 0.000 | 2.50 | 4.33 | Glycerophospholipid metabolism |
| Adenosine | 0.001 | 2.12 | 0.54 | Purine metabolism |
| Adenosine 5'-Diphosphate | 0.002 | 2.06 | 0.35 | Purine metabolism |
| Trigonelline | 0.043 | 1.36 | 0.35 | Vitamin metabolism |
| Thiamine pyrophosphate | 0.033 | 1.43 | 0.74 | Vitamin metabolism |
| Mucic acid | 0.030 | 1.46 | 0.74 | Other |
VIP, variable importance in the projection; FC, fold change; D-Ala-D-ala, D-Alanyl-D-alanine; MG, monoacylglycerol; SQDG, sulfoquinovosyl diacylglyceride; lysoPE, lysophosphatidylethanolamine; lysoPC, lysophosphatidylcholine; PG, phosphatidylglycerol.
Figure 4Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) variable importance in projection (VIP) plot of significantly differential metabolites in SLE patients and healthy controls. The χ-axis represented the VIP scores, and the y-axis represented the compounds. Red and green colors represented increased and decreased levels of metabolites, respectively.
Figure 5Pathway analysis of altered metabolites isolated from SLE patients compared with healthy controls. Twenty Three metabolic pathways were enriched in fecal samples. Aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis, thiamine metabolism, nitrogen metabolism, tryptophan metabolism, and cyanoamino acid metabolism significantly disturbed compared with healthy controls (p < 0.1). The χ-axis represented the pathway impact, and the y-axis represented the –log (p).
Figure 6ROC analysis of potential biomarkers for differentiating SLE patients from healthy controls. PG 27:2 showed an AUC of 0.787 (95% CI: 0.660–0.884, p = 0.0002) (A); the proline presented an AUC of 0.755 (95% CI: 0.624–0.858, p = 0.0009) (B); the combined model performed an AUC of 0.846 (95% CI: 0.727–0.927, p < 0.0001) (C); the combined model was evaluated by 100-fold cross validation (D) and permutation test (E), achieving an AUC of 0.838 (95% CI: 0.677–0.971, p < 0.0001) and a p < 0.01.