| Literature DB >> 32523723 |
Annick V Hartstra1, Pieter F de Groot1, Diogo Mendes Bastos1, Evgeni Levin1, Mireille J Serlie2, Maarten R Soeters2, Ceyda T Pekmez3, Lars O Dragsted3, Mariette T Ackermans4, Albert K Groen1,5, Max Nieuwdorp1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Insulin resistance develops prior to the onset of overt type 2 diabetes, making its early detection vital. Direct accurate evaluation is currently only possible with complex examinations like the stable isotope-based hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp (HIEC). Metabolomic profiling enables the detection of thousands of plasma metabolites, providing a tool to identify novel biomarkers in human obesity.Entities:
Keywords: citrulline; human insulin resistance; plasma metabolites; stable isotope hyperinsulinemic clamp
Year: 2020 PMID: 32523723 PMCID: PMC7278901 DOI: 10.1002/osp4.402
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obes Sci Pract ISSN: 2055-2238
Figure 1The distribution of peripheral insulin sensitivity (Rd) in all 60 participants as measured via hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp. The dashed line represents the cut‐off point of an Rd of 37.3 μmol kg−1 minute−1, below of which is considered insulin resistant
Figure 2Correlation plots of most important plasma markers with peripheral insulin sensitivity (Rd). The figures show the correlation of fasting plasma insulin (A), HOMA (B), gamma‐glutamylcitrulline (C) and citrulline (D with peripheral insulin sensitivity Rd as measured by stable isotope based hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clampin 60 participants
Correlations between fasting plasma metabolite and peripheral insulin sensitivity (Rd)
| Metabolite | Pathway |
| rho |
| Match Other Flux | Relative Importance for Predicting Rd, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐linleoyl‐GPC (16:0/18:2) | Phospholipid metabolism | .03 | −0.27 | −0.24 | ||
| 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐stearoyl‐GPC (16:0/18:0) | Phospholipid metabolism | .04 | 0.46 | 0.48 | 21 | |
| Beta‐cryptoxanthin | Vitamin A metabolism | .02 | 0.39 | 0.46 | EGP/REE | 20 |
| Betaine | Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism | .01 | 0.39 | 0.39 | EGP/Ra | 19 |
| Citrulline | Urea cycle; arginine and proline metabolism | .01 | 0.44 | 0.42 | Ra | 77 |
| Cortisol | Corticosteroid | .01 | −0.30 | −0.31 | ||
| Decanoylcarnitine (C10) | Fatty acid metabolism (acyl carnitine, medium chain) | .01 | −0.36 | −0.36 | ||
| Fructosyllysine | Lysine metabolism | .01 | −0.37 | −0.38 | EGP | |
| Gamma‐glutamylcitrulline | Citrulline metabolism | .03 | 0.40 | 0.37 | Ra | 100 |
| Glyco‐beta‐muricholate | Primary bile acid metabolism | .03 | −0.31 | −0.27 | ||
| Glycodeoxycholate 3‐sulfate | Secondary bile acid metabolism | .05 | −0.34 | −0.34 | ||
| Glycosyl‐ | Glycolipid metabolism | .00 | −0.37 | −0.35 | Ra | |
| Octanoylcarnitine (C8) | Fatty acid metabolism (acyl carnitine, medium chain) | .02 | −0.40 | −0.15 | 11 | |
| S‐methylmethionine | Methionine, cysteine, SAM and taurine metabolism | .04 | 0.30 | 0.32 | 12 | |
| Sphingomyelin (d18:0/18:0, d19:0/17:0) | Phospholipid metabolism | .02 | −0.26 | −0.25 | Ra | 25 |
| Taurodeoxychol 3‐sulfate | Secondary bile acid metabolism | .03 | −0.39 | −0.39 | EGP | |
| Thyroxine | Thyroid | .03 | −0.40 | −0.41 | Ra |
Note. Shown are significant (P<.05) Spearman's correlations between metabolites and Rd after correction with multivariate linear regression for age and BMI. Metabolites were considered relevant according to match with other flux, relative importance for predicting Rd via machine learning model and/or availability of literature.
Abbreviations: EGP: endogenous glucose production (hepatic insulin sensitivity); Ra: rate of appearance (glycerol suppression); Rd: rate of disappearance (peripheral insulin sensitivity); REE: resting energy expenditure.
Correlations between fasting plasma metabolite and hepatic insulin sensitivity (EGP suppression)
| Metabolite | Pathway |
| rho |
| Match Other Flux | Relative Importance for Predicting Rd, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3b‐hydroxy‐5‐cholenoic acid | Secondary bile acid metabolism | .02 | −0.27 | −0.19 | ||
| Beta‐cryptoxanthin | Vitamin A metabolism | .02 | 0.35 | 0.28 | Rd/REE | 20 |
| Betaine | Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism | .01 | 0.28 | 0.25 | Rd/Ra | 19 |
| Docosatrienoate (22:3n3) | Fatty acid metabolism | .05 | −0.36 | −0.35 | ||
| Etiocholanolone glucuronide | Androgenic steroids | .04 | −0.31 | −0.33 | ||
| Fructosyllysine | Lysine metabolism | .01 | −0.37 | −0.36 | Rd | |
| Lysine | Lysine metabolism | .04 | −0.29 | −0.32 | ||
| Taurodeoxychol 3‐sulfate | Secondary bile acid metabolism | .03 | −0.27 | −0.10 | Rd |
Note. Shown are significant (P<.05) Spearman's correlations between metabolites and EGP suppression after correction with multivariate linear regression for age and BMI. Metabolites were considered relevant according to match with other flux, relative importance for predicting Rd via machine learning model and/or availability of literature.
Abbreviations: BMI: body mass index; EGP: endogenous glucose production.
Correlations between fasting plasma metabolite and resting energy expenditure (REE)
| Metabolite | Pathway | rho |
|
| Match Other Flux | Relative Importance for Predicting Rd, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1‐docosahexaenoylglycerol (22:6) | Fatty acid metabolism | −0.43 | .01 | −0.44 | ||
| Beta‐cryptoxanthin | Vitamin A metabolism | −0.43 | .02 | −0.31 | Rd/EGP | 20 |
| Docosahexaenoate (DHA; 22:6n3) | Fatty acid metabolism | −0.44 | .03 | −0.46 |
Note. Shown are significant (P<.05) Spearman's correlations between metabolites and REE after correction with multivariate linear regression for age and BMI. Metabolites were considered relevant according to match with other flux, relative importance for predicting Rd via machine learning model and/or availability of literature.
Abbreviation: BMI: body mass index.
Correlations between fasting plasma metabolite and glycerol suppression (Ra)
| Metabolite | Pathway |
| rho |
| Match Other Flux | Relative Importance for Predicting Rd, % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1‐linoleoyl‐GPI* (18:2)* | Phospholipid metabolism | .00 | −0.45 | −0.60 | ||
| 1‐oleoyl‐GPI (18:1) | Phospholipid metabolism | .03 | −0,32 | −0.33 | ||
| 1‐palmitoleoyl‐2‐linolenoyl‐GPC (16:1/18:3)* | Phospholipid metabolism | .01 | −0,31 | ‐0.38 | ||
| 1‐palmitoyl‐2‐linoleoyl‐GPI (16:0/18:2) | Phospholipid metabolism | .04 | −0,34 | −0.33 | ||
| 1‐stearoyl‐2‐linoleoyl‐GPI (18:0/18:2) | Phospholipid metabolism | .01 | −0,30 | −0.37 | ||
| 3‐hydroxyoleate | Fatty acid metabolism | .03 | −0,26 | −0.21 | ||
| 5alpha‐androstan‐3alpha,17beta‐diol monosulfate (2) | Androgenic steroids | .02 | 0.40 | 0.31 | ||
| Betaine | Glycine, serine and threonine metabolism | .01 | 0.40 | 0.39 | Rd/EGP | 19 |
| Biliverdin | Hemoglobin and porphyrin metabolism | .03 | 0.29 | 0.33 | ||
| Citrulline | Urea cycle; arginine and proline metabolism | .01 | 0.39 | 0.42 | Rd | 77 |
| Epiandrosterone sulfate | Androgenic steroids | .04 | 0.28 | 0.05 | ||
| Gamma‐glutamylcitrulline | Citrulline metabolism | .01 | 0.40 | 0.41 | Rd | 100 |
| Glycosyl‐ | Glycolipid metabolism | .04 | −0.33 | −0.28 | Rd | |
| Guanidinoacetate | Creatine metabolism | .04 | 0.35 | 0.33 | ||
|
| Ceramide metabolism | .03 | −0,36 | −0.28 | ||
| Sphingomyelin (d18:0/18:0, d19:0/17:0) | Phospholipid metabolism | .01 | −0,36 | −0.33 | Rd | 25 |
| Sphingomyelin (d18:1/18:1, d18:2/18:0) | Phospholipid metabolism | .02 | −0,35 | −0.32 | ||
| Sphingomyelin (d18:1/20:2, d18:2/20:1, d16:1/22:2) | Phospholipid metabolism | .03 | −0,28 | −0.27 | ||
| Sphingomyelin (d18:2/16:0, d18:1/16:1) | Phospholipid metabolism | .04 | −0,31 | −0.37 | ||
| Thyroxine | Thyroid | .02 | −0.34 | −0.40 | Rd |
Note. Shown are significant (P<.05) Spearman's correlations between metabolites and Ra after correction with multivariate linear regression for age and BMI. Metabolites were considered relevant according to match with other flux, relative importance for predicting Rd via machine learning model and/or availability of literature.
Abbreviation: BMI: body mass index.
Figure 3Feature importance plot of metabolites in predictive model of Rd. The figures show the top 10 metabolites that were found to be most important in the Rd predictive model. The values were weighted with the feature importance as mentioned in Section 2