| Literature DB >> 35615098 |
Xiaofeng Peng1,2,3,4, Xiaoyi Wang1,2,3,4,5, Xue Shao1,2,3,4, Yucheng Wang1,2,3,4, Shi Feng1,2,3,4, Cuili Wang1,2,3,4, Cunqi Ye1,2,3,4,6, Jianghua Chen1,2,3,4, Hong Jiang1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the primary cause of end-stage renal disease, raising a considerable burden worldwide. Recognizing novel biomarkers by metabolomics can shed light on new biochemical insight to benefit DKD diagnostics and therapeutics. We hypothesized that serum metabolites can serve as biomarkers in the progression of DKD.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker discovery; diabetic kidney disease; metabolomics; progression; proteinuria
Year: 2022 PMID: 35615098 PMCID: PMC9126316 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.819311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Laboratory and clinical characteristics of individuals included in the SCREENING cohort.
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 50.07 ± 2.35 | 49.80 ± 3.33 | 50.18 ± 2.62 | 52.58 ± 3.65 |
| Sex (male/female) | 12/18 | 18/12 | 9/8 | 11/1 |
| History (years) | 6.40 ± 1.03 | 7.77 ± 1.13 | 7.04 ± 1.62 | |
| BMI | 22.68 ± 0.73 | 23.15 ± 0.83 | 24.23 ± 1.04 | |
| SBP (mmHg) | 122.90 ± 2.33 | 144.70 ± 5.53 | 137.30 ± 6.10 | |
| DBP (mmHg) | 77.17 ± 1.59 | 86.00 ± 2.73 | 86.25 ± 3.35 | |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 7.66 ± 0.54 | 7.49 ± 0.88 | 6.37 ± 0.53 | |
| TC (mmol/L) | 3.90 ± 0.16 | 5.71 ± 0.55 | 4.56 ± 0.42 | |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.47 ± 0.17 | 1.85 ± 0.21 | 1.77 ± 0.29 | |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2) | 103.70 ± 3.72 | 63.66 ± 7.58 | 79.50 ± 17.70 | |
| UPCR (g/g) | 1.88 ± 0.13 | 5.72 ± 0.65 | 1.81 ± 0.33 | |
BMI, Body Mass Index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; UPCR, urine protein/creatinine ratio.
eGFR was evaluated using the CDK-EPI equation.
The data are shown as the mean ± SEM.
P <0.05 vs. the health control or diabetic control.
Figure 1Experiment outline of this research.
Figure 2Overall similarity and differences between samples by PCA and OPLS-DA analysis. (A) PCA score plots of healthy controls (HC), diabetic controls (DC), diabetic kidney disease patients [DKD, i.e., Diabetic nephropathy (DN)]. (B,C) OPLS-DA score and model overview plots of HC, DC, and DKD. (D) 1,000-times permutation test of the model showed its high strong reliability.
Figure 3Visualization of serum metabolites difference between healthy controls and diabetic patients. (A) Volcano plot comparing serum metabolites in diabetic controls (DC) (n = 30) and healthy controls (HC) (n = 30). The vertical dashed lines indicate the threshold for the 1.5-fold abundance difference. The horizontal dashed line indicates the P = 0.05 threshold. X-axis, log2[average_FoldChange]. Y-axis, –log10[adjusted-P value]. P-value computed using a two-sided unpaired t-test without adjustment for multiple comparisons. (B) Volcano plot comparing serum metabolites in diabetic kidney disease patients (DKD) (n = 29) and healthy controls (HC) (n = 30). Refer to (A) for the description of the figure. (C) Volcano plot comparing serum metabolites in diabetic kidney disease patients (DKD) (n = 29) and diabetic controls (DC) (n = 30). Refer to (A) for the description of the figure. (D) Volcano plot comparing serum metabolites in diabetic kidney disease with heavy proteinuria (DKD-heavy) (n = 17) and diabetic kidney disease with moderate proteinuria (DKD-moderate) (n = 12). Refer to (A) for the description of the figure.
Figure 4Disturbed cysteine and methionine metabolism and hypotaurine metabolism pathway with significance identified from Metabanalyst in the comparison of DKD vs. DC, DKD-H vs. DKD-M. (A) Disturbed metabolic pathways were identified from the changed metabolites from the comparison of DKD vs. DC and DKD-H vs. DKD-M using serum samples. All matched pathways according to the p values from the pathway enrichment analysis and pathway impact values from the pathway topology analysis. The color of each node (varying from yellow to red) means the metabolites are in the data with different levels of significance, the size of each node represents the pathway impact values. (B) Altered serum metabolites in the cysteine and methionine metabolism pathway. The left square refers to the comparison of DKD vs. DC, the right square refers to the comparison of DKD-H vs. DKD-M. Red means upregulated more than 1.1 fold, Green means downregulated less than 0.91 fold, and gray means unchanged whose range between 0.91 and 1.1 in each comparison. (C) Altered serum metabolites in the hypotaurine metabolism pathway. Refer to (B) for the description of the figure.
Figure 5Asn-Met-Cys-Ser and Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro peak count changed with the progression of diabetic kidney disease. (A) Venn diagrams showing the number of upregulated (fold change ≥ 1.5) metabolites in DKD vs. DC and DKD-heavy vs. DKD-moderate (p < 0.05). (B) Venn diagrams showing the number of downregulated (fold change ≤ 0.67) metabolites in DKD vs. DC and DKD-heavy vs. DKD-moderate (p < 0.05). (C) Heatmap of 4 metabolites, Asn-Met-Cys-Ser, Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro, Thr-Cys-Cys and Isorhamnetin 3-(3″, 6″-di-p-coumarylglucoside) changed significantly (fold change ≥ 2 or ≤ 2) in the same direction in the comparison of DKD vs. DC and DKD-heavy vs. DKD-moderate. (D) Chemical structural formula, exact mass, and molecular weight of Asn-Met-Cys-Ser and Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro. (E,F) Confirmation of peak counts of Asn-Met-Cys-Ser and Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro in the validation group. Healthy control (HC) (n = 23), diabetic kidney disease with moderate proteinuria (DKD-M) (n = 25), and diabetic kidney disease with heavy proteinuria (DKD-H) (n = 35). The data are shown as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05 vs. the corresponding control group.
Four metabolites in the same direction after successive comparison.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asn-Met-Cys-Ser | 1.1261 | 1.71E−02 | 2.5934 | 2.17E−02 |
| Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro | 1.7428 | 3.00E−02 | 1.9677 | 4.55E−02 |
| Thr-Cys-Cys | −1.5338 | 2.04E−04 | −1.0485 | 2.54E−02 |
| Isorhamnetin 3-(3″,6″-di-p-coumarylglucoside) | 1.51 | 7.46E−04 | 1.303 | 1.74E−02 |
Characteristics of individuals included in the VERIFICATION group.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 44.57 ± 2.59 | 51.37 ± 1.73 | 52.04 ± 2.22 |
| Sex (male/female) | 10/13 | 26/9 | 20/5 |
| History (years) | 7.59 ± 0.94 | 6.93 ± 1.08 | |
| BMI | 24.13 ± 0.55 | 23.61 ± 0.45 | |
| SBP (mmHg) | 150.00 ± 3.61 | 144.00 ± 2.93 | |
| DBP (mmHg) | 87.63 ± 1.79 | 85.96 ± 1.97 | |
| FPG (mmol/L) | 8.19 ± 0.62 | 6.96 ± 0.62 | |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.43 ± 0.34 | 7.40 ± 0.33 | |
| TC (mmol/L) | 5.27 ± 0.26 | 4.27 ± 0.20 | |
| TG (mmol/L) | 2.18 ± 0.23 | 1.89 ± 0.22 | |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73 m2) | 58.49 ± 5.70 | 60.60 ± 5.11 | |
| UPCR (g/g) | 6.97 ± 0.43 | 2.16 ± 0.16 | |
BMI, Body Mass Index; SBP, systolic blood pressure; DBP, diastolic blood pressure; FPG, fasting plasma glucose; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; UPCR, urine protein/creatinine ratio.
eGFR was evaluated using the CDK-EPI equation.
The data are shown as the mean ± SEM.
P <0.05 vs. the control or DKD with moderate proteinuria group.
Figure 6Correlation with clinical parameters and prediction value. (A) Correlation of urine protein (g/L) and UACR (g/mol·Cr) with Asn-Met-Cys-Ser. (B) Correlation of urine protein (g/L) and UACR (g/mol·Cr) with Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro. (C) Individual value plots of Asn-Met-Cys-Ser in the validation group. (D) Area under the curve (AUC) of prediction models based on Asn-Met-Cys-Ser. (E) Individual value plots of Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro in the validation group. (F) Area under the curve (AUC) of prediction models based on Asn-Cys-Pro-Pro. The data are shown as the mean ± SEM. *P < 0.05 vs. the corresponding control group.
Figure 7Schematic illustration of the present study.