| Literature DB >> 34609622 |
Alejandro Villasanta-Gonzalez1,2,3,4, Juan Francisco Alcala-Diaz1,2,3,4, Antonio Camargo5,6,7,8, Jose Lopez-Miranda9,10,11,12, Cristina Vals-Delgado1,2,3,4, Antonio Pablo Arenas1,2,3,4, Magdalena P Cardelo1,2,3,4, Juan Luis Romero-Cabrera1,2,3,4, Fernando Rodriguez-Cantalejo13, Javier Delgado-Lista1,2,3,4, Maria M Malagon3,4,14, Pablo Perez-Martinez1,2,3,4, Matthias B Schulze15,16,17.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. For this reason, it is essential to identify biomarkers for the early detection of T2DM risk and/or for a better prognosis of T2DM. We aimed to identify a plasma fatty acid (FA) profile associated with T2DM development.Entities:
Keywords: COX; Disease prediction; FA Score; Fatty acids; Type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34609622 PMCID: PMC8854256 DOI: 10.1007/s00394-021-02676-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Nutr ISSN: 1436-6207 Impact factor: 5.614
Fig. 1Selection of the best model by Random Survival Forest (RSF). Selection in the Training set of fatty acids with a higher predictive power for type 2 diabetes, by applying an RSF in combination with a backward selection procedure
Association between fatty acids selected in the RSF and T2DM development, per SD increase
| Coeff | HR | 95% CI for HR | Linear trend | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||||||||
| Model 1 | ||||||||||
| Myristic acid C14:0 | 0.087 | 1.09 | 0.82 | 1.46 | 0.559 | |||||
| Petroselinic acid C18:1n-12 | − 0.077 | 0.93 | 0.74 | 1.15 | 0.492 | |||||
| α-Linolenic acid C18:3n-3 | − 0.269 | 0.76 | 0.59 | 0.99 | 0.047* | |||||
| Arachidonic acid C20:4n-6 | 0.211 | 1.24 | 0.91 | 1.68 | 0.177 | |||||
| Model 2 | ||||||||||
| Myristic acid C14:0 | 0.079 | 1.08 | 0.77 | 1.52 | 0.649 | |||||
| Petroselinic acid C18:1n-12 | − 0.029 | 0.97 | 0.70 | 1.35 | 0.860 | |||||
| α-Linolenic acid C18:3n-3 | − 0.278 | 0.76 | 0.57 | 1.01 | 0.060º | |||||
| Arachidonic acid C20:4n-6 | 0.299 | 1.34 | 0.97 | 1.88 | 0.078º | |||||
Model 1 was unadjusted, and Model 2 was adjusted by age, gender, diet, BMI, treatment with statins, HDL-c and TAG plasma levels
*Statistically significant
ºTrend to statistical significance
Fig. 2Disease-free survival by COX proportional hazards regression analysis according to FA Score in the Training set. Patients from the Training set were categorized according to the FA Score by tertiles, quartiles and median (ascending order). *This model was adjusted for age, gender, BMI, diet, treatment with statins, HDL-c and TG plasma levels. The hazard ratio (HR) between groups was calculated
Fig. 3Disease-free survival by COX proportional hazards regression analysis according to FA Score in the Validation set. Patients from the Validation set were categorized according to the FA Score by tertiles, quartiles and median (ascending order). *This model was adjusted for age, gender, BMI, diet, treatment with statins, HDL-c and TG plasma levels. The hazard ratio (HR) between groups was calculated
Fig. 4Relationship between FA profile and insulin resistance and beta-cell functionality indexes. Patients were categorized by baseline concentration of MA, PA, ALA and AA, and by FA Score calculated (ascending order). Mean ± S.E.M. of the insulin-sensitive index (ISI), disposition index (DI) and hepatic insulin resistance index (HIRI) during the follow-up period. ANOVA for repeated measures p-values adjusted by age, gender, BMI, diet, HDL-c and TG plasma levels. Global p-values: P(t): time effect; P(g): group effect; P(i): time by group interaction. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between groups in the Post-hoc Bonferroni's multiple comparison tests