| Literature DB >> 35832425 |
Qiang Zeng1, Mingming Zhao2,3, Fei Wang1, Yanping Li4, Huimin Li5,6, Jianqiong Zheng7, Xianyang Chen8,9, Xiaolan Zhao10, Liang Ji3, Xiangyang Gao1, Changjie Liu3, Yu Wang11, Si Cheng2, Jie Xu2, Bing Pan3, Jing Sun12, Yongli Li13, Dongfang Li14,15, Yuan He5,6, Lemin Zheng2,3.
Abstract
Emerging evidence is examining the precise role of intestinal microbiota in the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of intestinal microbiota and microbiota-generated metabolites with glucose metabolism systematically in a large cross-sectional study in China. 1160 subjects were divided into three groups based on their glucose level: normal glucose group (n=504), prediabetes group (n=394), and diabetes group (n=262). Plasma concentrations of TMAO, choline, betaine, and carnitine were measured. Intestinal microbiota was measured in a subgroup of 161 controls, 144 prediabetes and 56 diabetes by using metagenomics sequencing. We identified that plasma choline [Per SD of log-transformed change: odds ratio 1.36 (95 confidence interval 1.16, 1.58)] was positively, while betaine [0.77 (0.66, 0.89)] was negatively associated with diabetes, independently of TMAO. Individuals with diabetes could be accurately distinguished from controls by integrating data on choline, and certain microbiota species, as well as traditional risk factors (AUC=0.971). KOs associated with the carbohydrate metabolism pathway were enhanced in individuals with high choline level. The functional shift in the carbohydrate metabolism pathway in high choline group was driven by species Ruminococcus lactaris, Coprococcus catus and Prevotella copri. We demonstrated the potential ability for classifying diabetic population by choline and specific species, and provided a novel insight of choline metabolism linking the microbiota to impaired glucose metabolism and diabetes.Entities:
Keywords: TMAO; choline; intestinal microbiota; machine learning; type 2 diabetes
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35832425 PMCID: PMC9271784 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.906310
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Figure 1Flow chart of the study participant.
Baseline characteristics according to controls, prediabetes and diabetes.
| Totaln = 1160 | Controlsn = 504 | Prediabetesn = 394 | Diabetesn = 262 | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 46.0 (38.0, 52.0) | 42.0 (35.0, 51.0) | 47.0 (40.0, 52.0) | 48.0 (42.0, 53.0) | < 0.001 |
| Male, % | 65.2 | 57.9 | 68.0 | 74.8 | < 0.001 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 27.4 (25.4, 29.3) | 27.5 (24.7, 29.4) | 27.5 (26.0, 29.0) | 28.2 (26.4, 30.9) | < 0.001 |
| Systolic BP, mmHg | 129 (118, 139) | 125 (114, 135) | 129 (119, 140) | 135 (123, 146) | < 0.001 |
| Diastolic BP, mmHg | 82 ± 12 | 79.6 ± 11.4 | 83.0 ± 12.5 | 85.0 ± 12.6 | < 0.001 |
| Fasting glucose, mmol/L | 5.7 (5.2, 6.6) | 5.2 (4.9, 5.4) | 5.9 (5.7, 6.1) | 8.5 (7.3, 10.5) | < 0.001 |
| Total cholesterol, mmol/L | 5.3 (4.6, 5.9) | 5.0 (4.4, 5.7) | 5.4 (4.8, 5.9) | 5.4 (4.9, 6.2) | < 0.001 |
| Triglycerides, mmol/L | 1.8 (1.2, 2.7) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.3) | 1.8 (1.3, 2.6) | 2.4 (1.6, 3.7) | < 0.001 |
| HDL cholesterol, mmol/L | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | 1.2 (1.0, 1.4) | 0.082 |
| LDL cholesterol, mmol/L | 2.8 (2.4, 3.2) | 2.7 (2.3, 3.2) | 2.8 (2.4, 3.2) | 2.9 (2.5, 3.5) | < 0.001 |
| Uric acid, mg/dL | 372.5 ± 98.0 | 360.5 ± 100.1 | 387.6 ± 97.4 | 373.2 ± 92.0 | < 0.001 |
| Hypertension, % | 33.7 | 25.4 | 35.8 | 46.6 | < 0.001 |
| Dyslipidemia, % | 52.2 | 42.3 | 52.0 | 71.4 | < 0.001 |
| Hypeluricemia, % | 34.4 | 29.8 | 39.8 | 37.0 | < 0.001 |
| TMAO, μmol/L | 1.59 (0.98, 2.52) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.3) | 1.6 (1.0, 2.5) | 1.7 (1.1, 3.3) | 0.040 |
| Choline, μmol/L | 8.58 (7.23, 10.10) | 8.2 (6.9, 9.9) | 8.3 (7.1, 9.8) | 9.3 (7.9, 11.0) | < 0.001 |
| Betaine, μmol/L | 43.4 (37.30, 51.32) | 44.4 (37.7, 52.9) | 43.6 (37.7, 51.2) | 41.0 (35.2, 48.6) | 0.003 |
| Carnitine, μmol/L | 55.2 ± 10.8 | 55.5 ± 10.4 | 55.4 ± 10.8 | 54.5 ± 11.7 | 0.434 |
BMI, body mass index; BP, blood pressure; HDL, high-density lipoproterin; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; TMAO, trimethylamine N-oxide.
Relationship between plasma concentrations of TMAO, choline, betaine, carnitine and diabetes (μmol/L) .
| Per SD of log-transformed change* | P value | Quartiles* | P for trend | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (lowest) | 2 | 3 | 4 (highest) | ||||
|
| |||||||
| TMAO | 1.16 (1.00, 1.35) | 0.049 | 1.00 | 1.14 (0.75, 1.73) | 0.92 (0.60, 1.41) | 1.67 (1.11, 2.51)* | 0.035 |
| Choline | 1.36 (1.16, 1.58) | < 0.001 | 1.00 | 1.32 (0.86, 2.05) | 1.68 (1.10, 2.57)* | 1.93 (1.27, 2.92)** | 0.001 |
| Betaine | 0.77 (0.66, 0.89) | < 0.001 | 1.00 | 0.77 (0.53, 1.12) | 0.57 (0.38, 0.86)** | 0.47 (0.31, 0.70)*** | < 0.001 |
| Carnitine | 0.85 (0.73, 0.98) | 0.026 | 1.00 | 0.79 (0.56, 1.17) | 0.76 (0.52, 1.13) | 0.68 (0.45, 1.02) | 0.062 |
|
| |||||||
| TMAO | 1.28 (1.07, 1.53) | 0.006 | 1.00 | 1.29 (0.79, 2.11) | 1.03 (0.62, 1.69) | 2.08 (1.29, 3.36)* | 0.009 |
| Choline | 1.33 (1.11, 1.59) | 0.002 | 1.00 | 1.29 (0.78, 2.14) | 1.78 (1.09, 2.90)* | 1.85 (1.14, 3.02)* | 0.006 |
| Betaine | 0.79 (0.66, 0.94) | 0.009 | 1.00 | 0.74 (0.47, 1.17) | 0.56 (0.35, 0.90)* | 0.53 (0.33, 0.85)** | 0.004 |
| Carnitine | 0.86 (0.72, 1.03) | 0.104 | 1.00 | 0.75 (0.48, 1.20) | 0.81 (0.50, 1.27) | 0.65 (0.40, 1.05) | 0.107 |
|
| |||||||
| TMAO | 0.90 (0.69, 1.17) | 0.429 | 1.00 | 0.77 (0.35, 1.71) | 0.66 (0.29, 1.47) | 0.84 (0.38, 1.86) | 0.624 |
| Choline | 1.45 (1.07, 2.00) | 0.017 | 1.00 | 1.37 (0.57, 3.31) | 1.53 (0.66, 3.56) | 2.07 (0.92, 4.66) | 0.076 |
| Betaine | 0.73 (0.57, 0.95) | 0.017 | 1.00 | 0.88 (0.43, 1.80) | 0.63 (0.29, 1.38) | 0.30 (0.13, 0.72)** | 0.005 |
| Carnitine | 0.83 (0.63, 1.09) | 0.174 | 1.00 | 0.89 (0.42, 1.89) | 0.68 (0.31, 1.52) | 0.79 (0.36, 1.73) | 0.444 |
|
| |||||||
| TMAO | 1.12 (0.89, 1.41) | 0.341 | 1.00 | 1.11 (0.59, 2.10) | 0.92 (0.48, 1.76) | 1.61 (0.85, 3.04) | 0.256 |
| Choline | 1.50 (1.17, 1.94) | 0.002 | 1.00 | 1.52 (0.76, 3.06)* | 2.02 (1.01, 4.03) | 2.32 (1.16, 4.64)** | 0.011 |
| Betaine | 0.93 (0.73, 1.16) | 0.470 | 1.00 | 1.62 (0.88, 2.97) | 1.03 (0.53, 2.00) | 0.88 (0.43, 1.80) | 0.500 |
| Carnitine | 0.81 (0.64, 1.03) | 0.080 | 1.00 | 0.86 (0.46, 1.59) | 0.63 (0.33, 1.21) | 0.61 (0.32, 1.19) | 0.093 |
|
| |||||||
| TMAO | 1.19 (0.97, 1.45) | 0.092 | 1.00 | 1.14 (0.65, 2.01) | 0.92 (0.52, 1.63) | 1.70 (0.99, 2.92) | 0.080 |
| Choline | 1.29 (1.06, 1.57) | 0.012 | 1.00 | 1.22 (0.69, 2.16) | 1.53 (0.89, 2.62)* | 1.79 (1.05, 3.03)* | 0.022 |
| Betaine | 0.68 (0.56, 0.83) | < 0.001 | 1.00 | 0.45 (0.27, 0.75)** | 0.38 (0.23, 0.65)*** | 0.31 (0.19, 0.53)*** | < 0.001 |
| Carnitine | 0.89 (0.74, 1.07) | 0.220 | 1.00 | 0.75 (0.45, 1.26) | 0.86 (0.52, 1.41) | 0.76 (0.45, 1.28) | 0.391 |
For the definition of abbreviations, see .
In according to the quartiles based on TMAO, choline, betaine, and carnitine, separately, TMAO levels for the quartile groups were as follows: Q1 <0.98, Q2: 0.98~1.58, Q3: 1.59~2.52, Q4 > 2.52mmol/L; Choline levels for the quartiles were as follows: Q1 <7.2, Q2: 7.2~8.5, Q3: 8.6~10.1, Q4 > 10.1mmol/L; Betaine levels for the quartiles were as follows: Q1 < 37.3, Q2: 37.3~43.3, Q3: 43.4~51.3, Q4 > 51.3mmol/L. Carnitine levels for the quartiles were as follows: Q1 < 48.2, Q2: 48.2~55.1, Q3: 55.2~61.9, Q4 > 61.9mmol/L.
*Adjusted for traditional risk factors include age, sex, and body mass index; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 2Prediabetes and diabetes-associated intestinal microbiota. (A) Box plot showing the species-based α-diversity (Shanon index) in controls, prediabtes, and diabetes. (B) Species-based principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of controls, prediabtes, and diabetes. (C) Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) analysis revealed significant bacterial differences in fecal microbiota in controls, prediabtes, and diabetes. (D) Associations between clinical parameters, intestinal microbiota-generated metabolites and microbial species were estimated by MaAsLin2.
Figure 3Classification models using selected indicators to identify prediabetes or diabetes patients from controls. (A) The selected traditional risk indicators distinguished prediabetes from control based on the Random Forest model. The lengths of bar in the histogram represent Gini coefficient, which indicates the importance of the indicators for classification. The color denotes the enrichment of indicators in control (blue) and in prediabetes or diabetes (red). ROC of classifier models using four groups of biomarkers for prediabetes versus control. AUC = 0.785 for biomarkers 1 (blue curve), AUC = 0.839 for biomarkers 2 (yellow curve), AUC = 0.792 for biomarkers 3 (red curve), and AUC = 0.888 for biomarkers 4 (black curve). (B) The ANOVA-selected indicators distinguish diabetes from control based on the Random Forest model. ROC of classifier models using four groups of biomarkers for diabetes versus control. AUC = 0.941 for biomarkers 1 (blue curve), AUC = 0.971 for biomarkers 2 (yellow curve), AUC = 0.948 for biomarkers 3 (red curve), and AUC = 0.938 for biomarkers 4 (black curve).
Figure 4Microbial gene functions annotation in the low (lower thirds) and high (higher thirds) TMAO/Choline groups. (A) The average abundance of KEGG modules differentially enriched in gut microbiome of the low and high TMAO groups. Five modules enriched in low TMAO group, and 22 modules overrepresented in high TMAO group are shown in green and red, respectively. (B) The average abundance of KEGG modules differentially enriched in gut microbiome of low and high choline groups. Five modules enriched in low choline group, and twenty twou modules overrepresented in high choline group are shown in green and red, respectively. (C) The average abundance of CAZy family involved in metabolism of inulin, pectin, and starch significantly altered in the low and high TMAO groups. (D) The average abundance of CAZy family involved in metabolism of inulin significantly altered in the low and high choline groups. (E) The average abundance of KEGG modules differentially enriched in gut microbiome of groups with the low and high TMA production potential. 23 modules enriched in low TMA production potential group, and 24 modules overrepresented in high TMAO group are shown in green and red, respectively.