| Literature DB >> 35959293 |
Yinjiao Zhao1, Peiyu Song1, Hui Zhang1, Xiaoyu Chen2, Peipei Han2, Xing Yu2, Chenghu Fang1, Fandi Xie1, Qi Guo1,2.
Abstract
Objective: Unbiased metabolic profiling has been initiated to identify novel metabolites. However, it remains a challenge to define reliable biomarkers for rapid and accurate diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Our study aimed to evaluate the association of serum metabolites with MCI, attempting to find new biomarkers and combination models that are distinct for MCI.Entities:
Keywords: mild cognitive impairment; phosphatidylcholine; physical performance; sphingolipid metabolism; untargeted metabolomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35959293 PMCID: PMC9360416 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.951146
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
Baseline sociodemographic variables of the matched groups (N = 94).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 74.85 ± 5.09 | 75.64 ± 5.83 | 0.488 |
| Sex | 0.658 | ||
| Male (%) | 16 (34.04) | 14 (29.79) | |
| Female (%) | 31 (65.96) | 33 (70.21) | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.62 ± 4.13 | 24.21 ± 3.42 | 0.598 |
| Education level (%) | 0.826 | ||
| Illiteracy | 18 (38.30) | 19 (40.42) | |
| Primary school | 22 (46.81) | 23 (48.94) | |
| Secondary school | 7 (14.89) | 5 (10.64) | |
| Smoking | 4 (8.5) | 3 (6.4) | 0.694 |
| Drinking | 12 (25.5) | 13 (27.7) | 0.815 |
| Living alone | 38 (80.9) | 34 (72.3) | 0.330 |
| Grip/weight | 0.33 ± 0.15 | 0.33 ± 0.11 | 0.896 |
| Walking speed | 1.08 ± 0.28 | 0.89 ± 0.26 | 0.001 |
| TUGT | 11.38 ± 3.87 | 14.23 ± 6.61 | 0.013 |
| MMSE | 23.89 ± 3.14 | 16.66 ± 3.52 | <0.001 |
| Sleep duration | 8.76 ± 1.26 | 8.82 ± 1.68 | 0.859 |
| IPAQ | 5,162.2 ± 4,663.2 | 4,646.5 ± 5,133.7 | 0.611 |
| Total cholesterol | 5.21 ± 1.13 | 5.27 ± 1.16 | 0.798 |
| Triglycerides | 1.29 ± 0.63 | 1.40 ± 0.75 | 0.433 |
| HDL | 1.46 ± 0.37 | 1.44 ± 0.41 | 0.842 |
| LDL | 3.35 ± 0.92 | 3.34 ± 0.96 | 0.960 |
| Number of diseases | |||
| Diabetes (%) | 13 (27.7) | 13 (27.7) | 1.000 |
| Hypertension (%) | 29 (61.7) | 37 (78.7) | 0.071 |
| Hyperlipidemia (%) | 9 (19.1) | 9 (19.1) | 1.000 |
| Stroke (%) | 22 (46.8) | 20 (42.6) | 0.678 |
| Heart disease (%) | 20 (42.6) | 25 (53.2) | 0.302 |
| Osteoarthritis (%) | 9 (19.1) | 12 (25.5) | 0.458 |
| Peptic ulcer (%) | 9 (19.1) | 6 (12.8) | 0.398 |
NC, normal ctrl; MCI, mild cognitive impairment; BMI, body mass index; TUGT, Timed Up and Go Test; MMSE, the Mini-Mental State Examination; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL, low-density lipoprotein.
Figure 1Altered metabolic profiles in MCI compared with NC. (A) Score plot of PCA in the cohort. (B) RSD distribution of metabolites in QC samples. (C) OPLS-DA score plot of MCI and the matched NC groups. (D) Statistical validation of the OPLS-DA model by permutation testing with 200 iterations. (E) Volcano plot of the differential metabolites filtered by the univariate analysis between the NC and MCI groups. (F) The pie chart shows the classification and number of significantly disturbed metabolites.
Figure 2Heat map and metabolic pathway analysis based on the differentiated plasma metabolites. (A) The heat map showed the important differential metabolites profiling in serum samples of the NC and MCI groups. The blue color indicates a decreased level, and the red color indicates an increased level. (B) Pathway analysis indicates sphingolipid metabolism is the most statistically enriched pathway. (C) Plasma metabolite-based metabolic pathway analysis.
The top 20 metabolites contributed most to the difference in metabolic profiles.
| m/z | Ion mode | Metabolites | kegg | VIP | log2 (FC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 564.330 | neg | PC (18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0) | 12.73 | 0.38 | |
| 768.588 | pos | PC (P-18:0/16:0) | 11.10 | 0.32 | |
| 510.355 | pos | LysoPC (17:0) | C04230 | 9.30 | 0.19 |
| 794.604 | pos | PC [P-18:0/20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)] | 8.86 | 0.24 | |
| 480.309 | neg | LysoPC (15:0) | C04230 | 8.67 | 0.20 |
| 566.346 | neg | LysoPC (18:1(11Z)) | C04230 | 8.26 | 0.44 |
| 504.309 | neg | PC (17:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0) | 8.20 | 0.36 | |
| 235.092 | pos | L-2-Amino-3-oxobutanoic acid | C03508 | 7.97 | 0.27 |
| 850.560 | neg | PC [22:5(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)/16:1(9Z)] | C00157 | 7.68 | 0.19 |
| 540.330 | neg | LysoPC (16:0) | C04230 | 5.84 | 0.36 |
| 857.675 | neg | SM [d18:1/24:1(15Z)] | C00550 | 5.66 | 0.37 |
| 792.586 | pos | PC [18:1(9Z)/P-18:1(9Z)] | C00157 | 5.64 | 0.30 |
| 506.325 | neg | PC (17:1(10Z)/0:0) | 5.13 | 0.42 | |
| 588.331 | neg | LysoPC [20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)] | C04230 | 4.21 | 0.32 |
| 568.362 | neg | LysoPC (18:0) | C04230 | 3.89 | 0.26 |
| 538.315 | neg | LysoPC (16:1(9Z)/0:0) | C04230 | 3.77 | 0.41 |
| 818.602 | pos | PC [P-18:0/20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)] | 3.55 | 0.21 | |
| 612.331 | neg | LysoPC [22:6(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z)] | C04230 | 3.14 | 0.38 |
| 274.274 | pos | Palmitic acid | C00249 | 3.04 | 0.23 |
| 476.278 | neg | PE (18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0) | 2.99 | 0.29 |
PC, Phosphatidylcholine; SM, Sphingomyelin; PE, Phosphatidylethanolamine; VIP, Variable Importance in the Projection; FC, Fold change.
Figure 3Box plots and the ROC curves for the most significantly varied differential metabolites. (A) Box plots show the significant changes in metabolite levels of the first five PCs. Data were expressed as means ± SE. ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.001. (B) The ROC curves of the metabolite panel and each metabolite to discriminate MCI from the NC groups. (C) Comparison of the ROC curves for physical performance combined with metabolites with single physical performance tests. These combined metabolite panels showed satisfactory diagnostic performance for distinguishing MCI from NC. Model 1 includes grip/weight plus metabolites, the AUC = 0.863; model 2 includes walking speed plus metabolites, the AUC = 0.886; and model 3 includes TUGT plus metabolites, the AUC = 0.870. ROC, the receiver operating characteristic; TUGT, Timed Up and Go Test; MCI, mild cognitive impairment.
The AUC values for individual or combined metabolites and physical performance tests.
| Model | AUC | 95%CI | SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| PC(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0) | 0.742 | 0.641–0.826 | 0.0516 |
| PC(17:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0) | 0.734 | 0.633–0.820 | 0.0520 |
| PC[P-18:0/20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)] | 0.700 | 0.597–0.790 | 0.0541 |
| PC(P-18:0/16:0) | 0.699 | 0.596–0.790 | 0.0536 |
| PC[22:5(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)/16:1(9Z)] | 0.660 | 0.555–0.754 | 0.0573 |
| Metabolite panel | 0.841 | 0.794–0.904 | 0.0380 |
| Grip/weight | 0.531 | 0.425–0.635 | 0.0616 |
| Walking speed | 0.689 | 0.585–0.781 | 0.0549 |
| TUGT | 0.654 | 0.548–0.750 | 0.0578 |
| Model 1 | 0.863 | 0.776–0.926 | 0.0386 |
| Model 2 | 0.886 | 0.804–0.943 | 0.0343 |
| Model 3 | 0.870 | 0.784–0.931 | 0.0364 |
Model 1: Grip/weight, plus metabolite panel.
Model 2: Walking speed, plus metabolite panel.
Model 3: TUGT, plus metabolite panel.
Pairwise comparison of the ROC curves.
| Model | Difference between areas | 95%CI | SE | Z statistic |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 vs. Grip/weight | 0.332 | 0.192–0.472 | 0.072 | 4.642 | <0.001 |
| Model 2 vs. Walking speed | 0.197 | 0.094–0.300 | 0.053 | 3.742 | <0.001 |
| Model 3 vs. TUGT | 0.216 | 0.102–0.329 | 0.058 | 3.719 | <0.001 |
Model 1: Grip/weight, plus metabolite panel.
Model 2: Walking speed, plus metabolite panel.
Model 3: TUGT, plus metabolite panel.