| Literature DB >> 35935651 |
Ting Hu1, Wen Zhang1, Feifei Han1, Rui Zhao1, Lihong Liu1, Zhuoling An1.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a well-established risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with at least 2-3 fold higher risk of cardiovascular diseases than non-diabetics. Free fatty acids (FFAs) are believed to play important roles in the occurrence of cardiovascular disease in people with T2DM. The aim of this study was to investigate the fingerprint of plasma FFAs and their correlations with the tradition risk factors of cardiovascular disease in T2DM patients complicated by coronary heart disease (CHD-T2DM). A total of 401 participants, including healthy control (HC, n = 143), T2DM patients (n = 134), and CHD-T2DM patients (n = 126) were enrolled in this study. Plasma levels of 36 FFAs with carbon chain length ranged from 3 to 22 were quantified by using reverse phase ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS). Tradition risk factors of cardiovascular disease were tested in clinical laboratory, including homocysteine (HCY), creatine kinase (CK), high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP), and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and so on. Almost all the FFAs with different carbon chain length and unsaturation were significantly upregulated in the T2DM-CHD groups, compared to the HC and T2DM groups. Both n-3 and n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) were also found to be significantly upregulated in T2DM-CHD group compared to the T2DM group. However, no significantly differences of the n-6/n-3 PUFA ratio, arachidonic acid/eicosapentaenoic acid (AA/EPA) ratio, and arachidonic acid/docosahexaenoic acid (AA/DHA) ratio were observed between T2DM-CHD and T2DM groups. Plasma FFA levels were found to be positively correlated with HCY, CK, hsCRP, NT-proBNP and other tradition risk factors of CHD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that a dozens of FFAs were the independent risk factors of CHD after adjustment for confounding factors and other risk factors. Excessively high plasma levels of FFAs were demonstrated to be independent risk factors for CHD in patients with T2DM, despite of the differences in chain length, unsaturation, and double bond position.Entities:
Keywords: coronary heart disease; fingerprint; free fatty acid; risk factor; type 2 diabetes mellitus
Year: 2022 PMID: 35935651 PMCID: PMC9355375 DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.903412
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med ISSN: 2297-055X
Demographic and clinical characteristics of the participants.
| Characteristics | HC | T2DM | T2DM-CHD | |||
| No. of Subjects | 143 | 134 | 126 | |||
| Age (years) | 60.3 ± 10.1 | 58.8 ± 10.1 | 60.8 ± 10.7 | 0.078 | 0.852 | 0.124 |
| Gender | 0.370 | 0.708 | 0.217 | |||
| | 98 (69) | 85 (64) | 89 (71) | |||
| | 45 (31) | 49 (36) | 37 (29) | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.8 ± 3.8 | 25.2 ± 3.7 | 26.2 ± 3.7 | 0.273 | 0.005 | 0.078 |
| Smoking | 1.90E-06 | 7.62E-13 | 0.009 | |||
| | 22 (15) | 55 (41) | 72 (57) | |||
| | 121 (85) | 79 (59) | 54 (43) | |||
| Drinking | 4.08E-07 | 4.79E-08 | 0.636 | |||
| | 10 (7) | 41 (31) | 42 (33) | |||
| | 133 (93) | 93 (69) | 84 (67) | |||
| Lipid-lowering drugs | 0.017 | |||||
| | 0 (0) | 4 (3) | 13 (10) | |||
| | 143 (100) | 130 (97) | 113 (90) | |||
| Hypoglycemic drugs | 0.303 | |||||
| | 0 (0) | 130 (97) | 119 (96) | |||
| | 143 (100) | 4 (3) | 7 (6) | |||
| Hypotensive drugs | 7.85E-07 | |||||
| | 0 (0) | 40 (30) | 76 (60) | |||
| | 143 (100) | 94 (70) | 50 (40) | |||
| Duration of T2DM (years) | NA | 10.7 ± 7.7 | 10.5 ± 6.1 | 0.826 | ||
| Family history | ||||||
| | 143 (100) | 65 (49) | 64 (51) | 0.713 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 55 (41) | 10 (8) | 7.21E-10 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 3 (2) | 13 (10) | 0.007 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 14 (11) | 3.41E-04 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 7 (5) | 11 (9) | 0.266 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (3) | 0.038 | ||
| | 0 (0) | 3 (2) | 7 (6) | 0.165 | ||
|
| 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 3 (2) | 0.072 |
Data was presented as mean ± SD or participant numbers (%), unless otherwise specified. P values were calculated by hypothesis testing. For continuous variables, the distribution of the variable was first assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Bilateral student’s t-test was used for normally distributed data. While the Mann–Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data. For categorical variables, P values were calculated using the Chi-square test.
Results of clinical laboratory test.
| Characteristics | HC | T2DM | T2DM-CHD | |||
|
| ||||||
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.56 ± 0.94 | 4.73 ± 1.06 | 3.93 ± 1.07 | 0.134 | 7.58E-07&& | 6.00E-09 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.33 ± 0.34 | 1.25 ± 0.40 | 1.09 ± 0.29 | 0.010 | 3.10E-09&& | 0.001 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 2.62 ± 0.72 | 2.82 ± 0.84 | 2.20 ± 0.84 | 0.028 | 1.65E-05&& | 1.06E-08 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.32 ± 0.69 | 1.70 ± 1.17 | 1.68 ± 1.20 | 0.005 | 0.025& | 0.618 |
| Glucose (mmol/L) | 5.24 ± 2.17 | 8.50 ± 3.68 | 9.51 ± 4.49 | 1.15E-22 | 9.22E-26&& | 0.111 |
| Uric (μmol/L) | 303 ± 71 | 315 ± 78 | 334 ± 91 | 0.212 | 0.006&& | 0.120 |
| DBIL (μmol/L) | 3.47 ± 1.86 | 3.23 ± 2.32 | 4.03 ± 2.10 | 0.163 | 0.0342& | 7.00E-04 |
| IBIL (μmol/L) | 9.44 ± 4.20 | 10.3 ± 5.80 | 8.74 ± 4.39 | 0.493 | 0.1090 | 0.041 |
| TBA (μmol/L) | 4.44 ± 3.68 | 4.06 ± 3.78 | 4.10 ± 4.28 | 0.262 | 0.1338 | 0.616 |
| Creatinine (μmol/L) | 70.6 ± 16.8 | 70.2 ± 16.5 | 77.7 ± 21.9 | 0.514 | 0.0248& | 0.008 |
| HsCRP (mg/L) | NA | 2.93 ± 3.27 | 4.24 ± 3.82 | 0.001 | ||
| AST (U/L) | 24.1 ± 10.5 | 28.0 ± 71.3 | 69.6 ± 111.8 | 0.006 | 0.057 | 2.10E-04 |
| ALT (U/L) | 21.6 ± 11.1 | 25.4 ± 25.3 | 32.8 ± 35 | 0.579 | 9.09E-05&& | 0.002 |
| CK (U/L) | 98.6 ± 45.1 | 90.7 ± 51.0 | 442 ± 877 | 0.013 | 0.240 | 0.005 |
| MMB (ng/L) | NA | NA | 32.7 ± 74.3 | |||
| CTNI (ng/L) | NA | NA | 16.3 ± 37.3 | |||
| LDH (U/L) | 172 ± 29 | 158 ± 40 | 282 ± 258 | 2.88E-05 | 0.005&& | 3.08E-08 |
| HBDH (U/L) | 140 ± 23 | 134 ± 27 | 252 ± 252 | 0.030 | 1.37E-04&& | 3.93E-07 |
| ALP (U/L) | 82.7 ± 23.7 | 91.5 ± 25.1 | 86.6 ± 26.5 | 7.06E-04 | 0.143 | 0.067 |
| GGT (U/L) | 30.1 ± 26.2 | 40.2 ± 52.0 | 36.8 ± 31.4 | 0.083 | 0.007&& | 0.582 |
| HCY (μmol/L) | NA | 13.5 ± 4.8 | 16.9 ± 6.3 | 1.57E-07 | ||
| NT-proBNP (pg/mL) | NA | NA | 1,146 ± 2,098 | |||
| HbA1c (%) | NA | 9.85 ± 2.23 | 8 ± 1.61 | 3.55E-10 | ||
|
| ||||||
| SBP (mmHg) | 128 ± 16 | 146 ± 26 | 158 ± 30 | 1.97E-10 | 9.00E-18&& | 2.56E-04 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 78.4 ± 10.9 | 83.9 ± 15.3 | 90.7 ± 20.1 | 3.52E-04 | 1.96E-08&& | 0.006 |
|
| ||||||
| RBC (× 1012/L) | 4.58 ± 0.47 | 4.47 ± 0.48 | 4.36 ± 0.54 | 0.094 | 0.001&& | 0.071 |
| HGB (g/L) | 142 ± 13 | 138 ± 16 | 140 ± 92 | 0.018 | 7.26E-06&& | 0.030 |
| HCT (%) | 41.4 ± 3.5 | 39.6 ± 4.2 | 38.6 ± 4.6 | 2.38E-04 | 1.16E-07&& | 0.068 |
| MCV (fl) | 90.7 ± 4.6 | 88.8 ± 5.2 | 88.7 ± 4.8 | 4.05E-04 | 0.002&& | 0.773 |
| MCH (pg) | 31.1 ± 2.1 | 30.8 ± 2.2 | 30.3 ± 2.1 | 0.443 | 0.015& | 0.077 |
| MCHC (g/L) | 343 ± 11 | 346 ± 12 | 343 ± 12 | 0.003 | 0.990 | 0.005 |
| RDW-CV (%) | 12.9 ± 0.9 | 12.8 ± 1.0 | 13.1 ± 1.3 | 0.090 | 0.036& | 3.56E-04 |
|
| ||||||
| PLT (× 109/L) | 213 ± 56 | 219 ± 53 | 207 ± 49 | 0.239 | 0.483 | 0.043 |
| PDW (fl) | 12.6 ± 2.2 | 12.6 ± 1.8 | 12.4 ± 1.7 | 0.494 | 0.833 | 0.352 |
| MPV (fl) | 10.5 ± 1 | 10.5 ± 0.9 | 10.6 ± 0.9 | 0.605 | 0.197 | 0.371 |
| P-LCR (%) | 28.8 ± 8.2 | 29.1 ± 7.1 | 29.6 ± 7.1 | 0.534 | 0.254 | 0.547 |
|
| ||||||
| PT (s) | 11.3 ± 0.8 | 11.2 ± 0.8 | 11.5 ± 1.9 | 0.094 | 0.837 | 0.228 |
| PA (%) | 93.7 ± 6.3 | 97.8 ± 8 | 93.9 ± 10.6 | 4.03E-06 | 0.707 | 4.36E-04 |
| PR | 1.00 ± 0.06 | 0.98 ± 0.07 | 1.01 ± 0.15 | 0.001 | 0.461 | 0.028 |
| INR | 0.99 ± 0.05 | 0.96 ± 0.06 | 0.99 ± 0.16 | 1.45E-05 | 0.573 | 0.001 |
| APTT (s) | 28.6 ± 3.5 | 27.6 ± 3.9 | 28.8 ± 5.6 | 0.020 | 0.457 | 0.247 |
| FBG (mg/dL) | 263 ± 51 | 292 ± 72 | 296 ± 75 | 1.82E-04 | 9.47E-05&& | 0.712 |
| TT (s) | 19.1 ± 1.5 | 18.7 ± 1.7 | 20.0 ± 9.3 | 0.004 | 0.354 | 0.094 |
| D-DIMER (mg/L) | NA | 0.36 ± 0.50 | 0.42 ± 0.57 | 0.016 | ||
|
| ||||||
| FT3 (pg/mL) | NA | 2.61 ± 0.43 | 2.58 ± 0.75 | 0.124 | ||
| FT4 (ng/dl) | NA | 1.05 ± 0.14 | 1.06 ± 0.17 | 0.571 | ||
| STSH (uIU/ml) | NA | 1.91 ± 1.97 | 1.66 ± 1.62 | 0.079 |
Data was presented as mean ± SD, unless otherwise specified. P values were calculated by hypothesis testing. Data distribution was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Bilateral student’s t-test was used for normally distributed data. While the Mann–Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data. (&, *), P < 0.05; (&&, **), P < 0.01.
FIGURE 1Biosynthetic pathway of unsaturated FFAs.
FIGURE 2(A) Circos plot exhibited the distribution of FFAs in each groups. (B) Heatmap showing the average FFA concentrations in each group. (C) Histogram of FFAs with different carbon chain lengths. (D) Histogram of FFAs with different unsaturation. The ratios of different FFAs were also compared. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. P values were calculated by hypothesis testing. Data distribution was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Bilateral student’s t-test was used for normally distributed data. While the Mann–Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data.
FA concentrations (mean ± SD) in different groups.
| FFAs | Abbreviation | Classification | HC (ng/mL) | T2DM (ng/mL) | T2DM-CHD (ng/mL) | |||
| Propionic acid | FA 3:0 | 412.6 ± 107.8 | 408.0 ± 105.0 | 461.8 ± 113.8 | 0.673 | 2.90E-04&& | 4.52E-05 | |
| Butyric acid | FA 4:0 | 96.9 ± 16.5 | 101.6 ± 39.6 | 117.6 ± 29.9 | 0.400 | 1.01E-11&& | 2.59E-09 | |
| Pentanoic acid | FA 5:0 | 87.9 ± 22.0 | 98.4 ± 27.1 | 106.0 ± 28.0 | 0.001 | 3.71E-08&& | 0.017 | |
| Caproic acid | FA 6:0 | 363.1 ± 76.2 | 359.4 ± 81.4 | 412.3 ± 91.7 | 0.396 | 7.80E-06&& | 7.56E-07 | |
| Heptanoic acid | FA 7:0 | 477.2 ± 169.6 | 483.6 ± 172.8 | 508.7 ± 196.8 | 0.859 | 0.278 | 0.437 | |
| Octanoic acid | FA 8:0 | 36.6 ± 19.9 | 34.0 ± 30.0 | 34.8 ± 12.5 | 0.050 | 0.997 | 0.056 | |
| Non-anoic acid | FA 9:0 | 10.0 ± 3.2 | 10.0 ± 6.0 | 10.8 ± 4.1 | 0.060 | 0.102 | 0.003 | |
| Decanoic acid | FA 10:0 | 72.0 ± 63.1 | 51.3 ± 70.0 | 69.6 ± 54.8 | 4.62E-05 | 0.771 | 1.56E-05 | |
| Undecanoic acid | FA 11:0 | 2.9 ± 1.6 | 2.5 ± 1.8 | 3.2 ± 2.1 | 0.008 | 0.097 | 1.62E-05 | |
| Lauric Acid | FA 12:0 | 223.7 ± 190.8 | 164.6 ± 108.2 | 231.4 ± 147.0 | 0.003 | 0.155 | 3.02E-05 | |
| Myristic Acid | FA 14:0 | 858.9 ± 553.5 | 825.3 ± 533.3 | 1,693.7 ± 1,522.7 | 0.999 | 7.65E-08&& | 3.09E-08 | |
| 4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z-Hexadecatetraenoic Acid | FA 16:4 | n3 | 47.7 ± 32.9 | 41.1 ± 37.6 | 52.9 ± 36.8 | 0.016 | 0.186 | 2.72E-04 |
| Palmitoleic Acid | FA 16:1 | 1,322.6 ± 962.0 | 1,314.8 ± 977.5 | 2,705.6 ± 2,727.8 | 0.745 | 1.14E-06&& | 1.16E-06 | |
| Palmitic Acid | FA 16:0 | 14,566.1 ± 6,108.5 | 15,656.6 ± 6,297.9 | 24,295.0 ± 13,625.1 | 0.137 | 9.42E-10&& | 5.31E-07 | |
| FA 17:1 | 104.6 ± 71.4 | 114.7 ± 81.0 | 248.5 ± 269.0 | 0.270 | 6.31E-10&& | 1.04E-07 | ||
| Heptadecanoic Acid | FA 17:0 | 198.8 ± 102.8 | 225.3 ± 120.3 | 419.4 ± 355.7 | 0.039 | 1.07E-11&& | 7.71E-08 | |
| Stearidonic Acid | FA 18:4 | n3 | 16.2 ± 15.6 | 13.4 ± 12.9 | 33.3 ± 50.5 | 0.070 | 2.45E-06&& | 8.95E-10 |
| α-Linolenic Acid | FA 18:3-n3 | n3 | 1,341.4 ± 759.0 | 1,294.8 ± 700.2 | 2,001.5 ± 1,284.2 | 0.820 | 7.69E-06&& | 2.28E-06 |
| γ-Linolenic Acid | FA 18:3-n6 | n6 | 188.2 ± 114.2 | 305.8 ± 1,061.2 | 452.8 ± 538.2 | 0.939 | 5.35E-10&& | 9.57E-10 |
| Linoleic Acid | FA 18:2 | n6 | 22,130.2 ± 10,977.1 | 23,278.3 ± 11,118.4 | 37,945.4 ± 21,482.2 | 0.358 | 1.52E-09&& | 5.56E-08 |
| Oleic Acid | FA 18:1 | 16,218 ± 8,467.2 | 18,019.8 ± 8,781.8 | 26,990.7 ± 14,207.2 | 0.073 | 2.30E-10&& | 3.50E-07 | |
| Stearic Acid | FA 18:0 | 6,227.1 ± 1,965.1 | 6,208.8 ± 1,937.8 | 8,202.2 ± 3,657.2 | 0.868 | 5.11E-06&& | 2.00E-06 | |
| Eicosapentaenoic Acid (EPA) | FA 20:5 | n3 | 85.4 ± 80.6 | 80.7 ± 65.9 | 164.1 ± 224.4 | 0.689 | 4.29E-05&& | 6.07E-05 |
| Arachidonic Acid (AA) | FA 20:4 | n6 | 910.5 ± 599.0 | 960.0 ± 601.4 | 1,547.9 ± 1,391.5 | 0.380 | 2.54E-05&& | 4.54E-04 |
| Dihomo-γ-Linolenic Acid | FA 20:3 | n6 | 145.5 ± 100.5 | 149.0 ± 126.9 | 331.2 ± 351.0 | 0.751 | 2.58E-08&& | 8.03E-08 |
| 8Z,14Z-Eicosadienoic Acid | FA 20:2 | n6 | 233.3 ± 120.7 | 259.6 ± 136.0 | 487.1 ± 384.6 | 0.085 | 1.10E-10&& | 1.70E-07 |
| 11E-Eicosenoic Acid | FA 20:1 | 301.2 ± 176.0 | 349.7 ± 204.8 | 626.6 ± 551.5 | 0.034 | 3.90E-10&& | 2.34E-06 | |
| Arachidic Acid | FA 20:0 | 49.8 ± 18.1 | 66.7 ± 64.3 | 88.5 ± 86.7 | 0.302 | 1.08E-06&& | 1.36E-04 | |
| Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) | FA 22:6 | n3 | 468.0 ± 261.9 | 484.9 ± 255.9 | 775.5 ± 564.0 | 0.308 | 3.31E-07&& | 1.29E-05 |
| Docosapentaenoic Acid | FA 22:5-n3 | n3 | 244.7 ± 179.2 | 259.1 ± 180.4 | 605.9 ± 672.2 | 0.210 | 8.29E-10&& | 7.43E-08 |
| 4,7,10,13,16-Docosapentaenoic Acid | FA 22:5-n6 | n6 | 77.3 ± 53.4 | 76.5 ± 46.5 | 139.7 ± 133.0 | 0.509 | 1.86E-06&& | 1.29E-05 |
| 7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z-Docosatetraenoic Acid | FA 22:4 | n6 | 279.6 ± 175.5 | 319.0 ± 194.6 | 631.8 ± 610.9 | 0.042 | 1.50E-11&& | 1.88E-07 |
| Docosatrienoic Acid | FA 22:3 | n3 | 6.7 ± 2.7 | 6.8 ± 3.5 | 11.5 ± 7.6 | 0.829 | 1.09E-09&& | 2.42E-09 |
| 13Z,16Z-Docosadienoic Acid | FA 22:2 | n6 | 9.3 ± 4.3 | 10.0 ± 4.8 | 16.4 ± 11.4 | 0.284 | 5.84E-09&& | 7.82E-07 |
| 13Z-Docosenoic Acid | FA 22:1 | 37.1 ± 45.4 | 32.1 ± 23.2 | 45.8 ± 39.6 | 0.923 | 7.94E-04&& | 4.15E-04 | |
| Docosanoic Acid | FA 22:0 | 7.8 ± 6.6 | 7.3 ± 3.4 | 11.0 ± 12.0 | 0.685 | 2.86E-04&& | 7.74E-05 |
Data was presented as mean ± SD, unless otherwise specified. P values were calculated by hypothesis testing. Data distribution was assessed by the Shapiro–Wilk test. Bilateral student’s t-test was used for normally distributed data. While the Mann–Whitney U test was used for non-parametric data. (&, *), P < 0.05; (&&, **), P < 0.01.
FIGURE 3(A,B) FCs (T2DM-CHD/T2DM) of the significantly changed (P < 0.05) clinical indicators and FFAs existed between T2DM and T2DM-CHD groups, respectively. (C) Spearman’s rank correlation analysis of the FFAs. (D,E) Significant positive and negative correlations (P < 0.05) existed between FFAs and clinical indictors, respectively.
FIGURE 4(A–E) Exploration of differences between HC and T2DM-CHD groups. (A) PCA score scatter plot. (B) OPLS-DA score scatter plot. (C) Random permutation test of the OPLS-DA model. (D) Venn diagram depicting the overlap of different statistical methods. (E) ROC curves of the potential biomarkers for the discrimination of HC and T2DM-CHD groups. (F–J) Exploration of differences between T2DM and T2DM-CHD groups. (F) PCA score scatter plot. (G) OPLS-DA score scatter plot. (H) Random permutation test of the OPLS-DA model. (I) Venn diagram depicting the overlap of different statistical methods. (J) ROC curves of the potential biomarkers for the discrimination of T2DM and T2DM-CHD groups. (K) A forest plot of the significantly changed FFAs between T2DM and T2DM-CHD groups. Red indicates FFAs with P < 0.05 in multivariate analysis.