Maria Cabral1, Shrikant I Bangdiwala2, Milton Severo3, João T Guimarães4, Luísa Nogueira5, Elisabete Ramos3. 1. EPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Rua das Taipas 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal; Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal. Electronic address: maria.cabral@ispup.up.pt. 2. Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. 3. EPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Rua das Taipas 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal; Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal. 4. EPIUnit - Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade do Porto, Rua das Taipas 135, 4050-600 Porto, Portugal; Departamento de Biomedicina, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Portugal; Departamento de Patologia Clínica, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João, Al. Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal. 5. Escola Superior de Saúde do Porto, Politécnico do Porto, R. Dr. António Bernardino de Almeida 400, 4200-072 Porto, Portugal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence regarding the impact of regional body fat distribution on low-grade inflammation is limited. The current study examined the association of central and peripheral body fat distribution and low-grade inflammation levels in young adults, considering collinearity between variables. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional analysis of 809 adults (aged 27 years) was conducted as part of the EPITeen cohort, Porto, Portugal. Regional body fat was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan (DXA) and serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was measured in a fasting blood sample. OLS (ordinary least squares) and LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression models were fitted to estimate the association of trunk and peripheral fat with hsCRP, stratified by sex. Using OLS regression, trunk fat in females was positively associated with ln(hsCRP) (β1 = 0.064, 95% CI 0.018; 0.109). The effect of peripheral fat on ln(hsCRP) was shown not to be significantly different from trunk fat (β2 = -0.011, 95% CI -0.110; 0.089), but no statistically significant association was observed (β3 = 0.053, 95% CI -0.004; 0.110) between peripheral fat and ln(hsCRP). In males, trunk fat also showed a positive association with ln(hsCRP) (β1 = 0.104, 95% CI 0.055; 0.154), and the effect of peripheral fat on ln(hsCRP) was shown to be significantly different from trunk fat (β2 = -0.124, 95% CI -0.237;-0.011). However, the association between peripheral fat and ln(hsCRP) did not reach statistical significance (β3 = -0.020, 95% CI -0.086; 0.046). The results of OLS were confirmed by LASSO regression. CONCLUSION: A higher fat deposited in the trunk was positively associated with hsCRP, whereas no statistically significant effect was observed for peripheral fat.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Evidence regarding the impact of regional body fat distribution on low-grade inflammation is limited. The current study examined the association of central and peripheral body fat distribution and low-grade inflammation levels in young adults, considering collinearity between variables. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional analysis of 809 adults (aged 27 years) was conducted as part of the EPITeen cohort, Porto, Portugal. Regional body fat was measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan (DXA) and serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) was measured in a fasting blood sample. OLS (ordinary least squares) and LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) regression models were fitted to estimate the association of trunk and peripheral fat with hsCRP, stratified by sex. Using OLS regression, trunk fat in females was positively associated with ln(hsCRP) (β1 = 0.064, 95% CI 0.018; 0.109). The effect of peripheral fat on ln(hsCRP) was shown not to be significantly different from trunk fat (β2 = -0.011, 95% CI -0.110; 0.089), but no statistically significant association was observed (β3 = 0.053, 95% CI -0.004; 0.110) between peripheral fat and ln(hsCRP). In males, trunk fat also showed a positive association with ln(hsCRP) (β1 = 0.104, 95% CI 0.055; 0.154), and the effect of peripheral fat on ln(hsCRP) was shown to be significantly different from trunk fat (β2 = -0.124, 95% CI -0.237;-0.011). However, the association between peripheral fat and ln(hsCRP) did not reach statistical significance (β3 = -0.020, 95% CI -0.086; 0.046). The results of OLS were confirmed by LASSO regression. CONCLUSION: A higher fat deposited in the trunk was positively associated with hsCRP, whereas no statistically significant effect was observed for peripheral fat.
Authors: Sharon Remmelzwaal; Joline W J Beulens; Petra J M Elders; Coen D A Stehouwer; M Louis Handoko; Yolande Appelman; Vanessa van Empel; Stephane R B Heymans; A Johanne van Ballegooijen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 4.379