| Literature DB >> 34393999 |
Xiaogang Li1,2, Xi Wang3, Haolong Li1, Yongzhe Li1, Ye Guo1.
Abstract
Background: Kallmann syndrome (KS) is a rare developmental disorder. Our previous metabolomics work showed substantial changes in linoleic acid and glycerophospholipid metabolism in KS. Here, we performed targeted lipidomics to further identify the differential lipid species in KS.Entities:
Keywords: Kallmann syndrome; UPLC-MS/MS; biomarker; rare disease; targeted lipidomics
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34393999 PMCID: PMC8358976 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.692690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 5.555
Clinical characteristics of all participants.
| Parameter | Patients with KS (n = 20) | Healthy controls (n = 23) | Normal reference ranges |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis (years), mean ± SD | 22.2 ± 5.1 | 24.3 ± 8.4 | – |
| Olfactory (anosmia) | 21/21 | Negative | Negative |
| Deafness | 2/21 | Negative | Negative |
| Cryptorchidism | 2/21 | Negative | Negative |
| Gynecomastia | 5/21 | Negative | Negative |
| Agenesis of kidney | 1/21 | Negative | Negative |
| Semen non-liquefaction | 13/21 | 0/23 | liquefaction |
| Semen condensed | 12/21 | 0/23 | Negative |
| Sperm count (million) | 13.9 ± 21.5 | 367.4 ± 206.1* | ≥39 |
| Sperm concentration (million/ml) | 5.7 ± 9.8 | 102.8 ± 57.2* | ≥15 |
| Sperm motility (%) | 7.4 ± 9.8 | 67.1 ± 11.1* | ≥40 (PR + NP) |
| Seminal fructose (Positive) | 17/17 | 17/17 | Positive |
| FSH (IU/L) | 1.27 (0.62–2.64) | 5.61 (1.95–16.32)* | 1.27–19.26 |
| LH (IU/L) | 0.33 (0.16–1.66) | 3.93 (1.67–7.42)* | 1.24–8.62 |
| T (ng/ml) | 0.55 (0.31–2.79) | 4.22 (2.24–7.30)* | 1.75–7.81 |
| PRL (ng/ml) | 7.49 (6.75–11.25) | 6.98 (4.71–10.24) | 2.6–13.1 |
| E2 (pg/ml) | 18 (8–31) | 20 (9–34) | <39 |
FSH, follicle-stimulating hormone; LH, luteinizing hormone; T, testosterone; E2, estradiol; PRL, prolactin.
*Indicates p <0.05.
Figure 1Orthogonal partial least squares-discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) model for group treatment (KS, blue) vs control (HC, red). Ions marked in blue show a significant difference in intensity between the KS and HC groups.
Figure 2Volcano plot for the treatment (KS) vs control (HC) groups.
Figure 3Heatmap of hierarchical clustering analysis for the treatment (KS) vs control (HC) groups.
Figure 4Radar chart analysis for the treatment (KS) vs control (HC) groups.
Figure 5Bubble plot for the treatment (KS) vs control (HC) groups.