4.3 Article

Mitochondrial DNA Copy Number in Peripheral Blood Is Independently Associated with Visceral Fat Accumulation in Healthy Young Adults

期刊

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2014/586017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Yonsei University College of Medicine [6-2013-0021]
  2. Bio & Medical Technology Development Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea
  3. Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning [NRF-2013M3A9B6046413]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims. Visceral obesity is associated with an increased risk of cardiometabolic diseases and it is important to identify the underlying mechanisms. There is growing evidence that mitochondrial dysfunction is associated with metabolic disturbances related to visceral obesity. In addition, maintaining mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number is important for preserving mitochondrial function. Therefore, we investigated the relationship between mtDNA copy number and visceral fat in healthy young adults. Methods. A total of 94 healthy young subjects were studied. Biomarkers of metabolic risk factors were assessed along with body composition by computed tomography. mtDNA copy number was measured in peripheral leukocytes using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods. Results. The mtDNA copy number correlated with BMI (r = -0.22, P = 0.04), waist circumference (r = -0.23, P = 0.03), visceral fat area (r = -0.28, P = -0.01), HDL-cholesterol levels (r = 0.25, P = 0.02), and hs-CRP (r = 0.32, P = 0.02) after adjusting for age and sex. Both stepwise and nonstepwise multiple regression analyses confirmed that visceral fat area was independently associated with mtDNA copy number (beta = -0.33, P < 0.01, beta = 0.32, and P = 0.03, resp.). Conclusions. An independent association between mtDNA content and visceral adiposity was identified. These data suggest that mtDNA copy number is a potential predictive marker for metabolic disturbances. Further studies are required to understand the causality and clinical significance of our findings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据