| 21. |
- Yaghootkar, Hanieh, et al.
(författare)
-
Mendelian randomization studies do not support a causal role for reduced circulating adiponectin levels in insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Diabetes. - : American Diabetes Association. - 1939-327X .- 0012-1797. ; 62:10, s. 3589-3598
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Adiponectin is strongly inversely associated with insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes, but its causal role remains controversial. We used a Mendelian randomization approach to test the hypothesis that adiponectin causally influences insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. We used genetic variants at the ADIPOQ gene as instruments to calculate a regression slope between adiponectin levels and metabolic traits (up to 31,000 individuals) and a combination of instrumental variables and summary statistics-based genetic risk scores to test the associations with gold-standard measures of insulin sensitivity (2,969 individuals) and type 2 diabetes (15,960 case subjects and 64,731 control subjects). In conventional regression analyses, a 1-SD decrease in adiponectin levels was correlated with a 0.31-SD (95% CI 0.26-0.35) increase in fasting insulin, a 0.34-SD (0.30-0.38) decrease in insulin sensitivity, and a type 2 diabetes odds ratio (OR) of 1.75 (1.47-2.13). The instrumental variable analysis revealed no evidence of a causal association between genetically lower circulating adiponectin and higher fasting insulin (0.02 SD; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.11; N = 29,771), nominal evidence of a causal relationship with lower insulin sensitivity (-0.20 SD; 95% CI -0.38 to -0.02; N = 1,860), and no evidence of a relationship with type 2 diabetes (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.75-1.19; N = 2,777 case subjects and 13,011 control subjects). Using the ADIPOQ summary statistics genetic risk scores, we found no evidence of an association between adiponectin-lowering alleles and insulin sensitivity (effect per weighted adiponectin-lowering allele: -0.03 SD; 95% CI -0.07 to 0.01; N = 2,969) or type 2 diabetes (OR per weighted adiponectin-lowering allele: 0.99; 95% CI 0.95-1.04; 15,960 case subjects vs. 64,731 control subjects). These results do not provide any consistent evidence that interventions aimed at increasing adiponectin levels will improve insulin sensitivity or risk of type 2 diabetes.
|
|
| 22. |
- Zanetti, Daniela, et al.
(författare)
-
Plasma proteomic signatures of a direct measure of insulin sensitivity in two population cohorts
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Diabetologia. - : Springer. - 0012-186X .- 1432-0428. ; 66:9, s. 1643-1654
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims/hypothesis The euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp (EIC) is the reference standard for the measurement of whole-body insulin sensitivity but is laborious and expensive to perform. We aimed to assess the incremental value of high-through-put plasma proteomic profiling in developing signatures correlating with the M value derived from the EIC.Methods We measured 828 proteins in the fasting plasma of 966 participants from the Relationship between Insulin Sensitivity and Cardiovascular disease (RISC) study and 745 participants from the Uppsala Longitudinal Study of Adult Men (ULSAM) using a high-throughput proximity extension assay. We used the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) approach using clinical variables and protein measures as features. Models were tested within and across cohorts. Our primary model performance metric was the proportion of the M value variance explained (R-2).Results A standard LASSO model incorporating 53 proteins in addition to routinely available clinical variables increased the M value R-2 from 0.237 (95% CI 0.178, 0.303) to 0.456 (0.372, 0.536) in RISC. A similar pattern was observed in ULSAM, in which the M value R-2 increased from 0.443 (0.360, 0.530) to 0.632 (0.569, 0.698) with the addition of 61 proteins. Models trained in one cohort and tested in the other also demonstrated significant improvements in R-2 despite differences in baseline cohort characteristics and clamp methodology (RISC to ULSAM: 0.491 [0.433, 0.539] for 51 proteins; ULSAM to RISC: 0.369 [0.331, 0.416] for 67 proteins). A randomised LASSO and stability selection algorithm selected only two proteins per cohort (three unique proteins), which improved R-2 but to a lesser degree than in standard LASSO models: 0.352 (0.266, 0.439) in RISC and 0.495 (0.404, 0.585) in ULSAM. Reductions in improvements of R-2 with randomised LASSO and stability selection were less marked in cross-cohort analyses (RISC to ULSAM R-2 0.444 [0.391, 0.497]; ULSAM to RISC R-2 0.348 [0.300, 0.396]). Models of proteins alone were as effective as models that included both clinical variables and proteins using either standard or randomised LASSO. The single most consistently selected protein across all analyses and models was IGF-binding protein 2.Conclusions/interpretation A plasma proteomic signature identified using a standard LASSO approach improves the cross-sectional estimation of the M value over routine clinical variables. However, a small subset of these proteins identified using a stability selection algorithm affords much of this improvement, especially when considering cross-cohort analyses. Our approach provides opportunities to improve the identification of insulin-resistant individuals at risk of insulin resistance-related adverse health consequences.
|
|
