4.7 Article

A Distinct Pattern of Circulating Amino Acids Characterizes Older Persons with Physical Frailty and Sarcopenia: Results from the BIOSPHERE Study

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu10111691

关键词

aging; muscle; protein; metabolism; metabolomics; profiling; biomarkers; multi-marker; physical performance; multivariate

资金

  1. Fondazione Roma
  2. Innovative Medicines Initiative-Joint Undertaking [IMI-JU 115621]
  3. nonprofit research foundation Centro Studi Achille e Linda Lorenzon
  4. Universita Cattolica del Sacro Cuore [D3.2 2013, D3.2 2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physical frailty and sarcopenia (PF&S) are hallmarks of aging that share a common pathogenic background. Perturbations in protein/ amino acid metabolism may play a role in the development of PF&S. In this initial report, 68 community-dwellers aged 70 years and older, 38 with PF&S and 30 non-sarcopenic, non-frail controls (nonPF&S), were enrolled as part as the BIOmarkers associated with Sarcopenia and Physical frailty in EldeRly pErsons (BIOSPHERE) study. A panel of 37 serum amino acids and derivatives was assayed by UPLC-MS. Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) was used to characterize the amino acid profile of PF&S. The optimal complexity of the PLS-DA model was found to be three latent variables. The proportion of correct classification was 76.6 +/- 3.9% (75.1 +/- 4.6% for enrollees with PF & S; 78.5 +/- 6.0% for nonPF&S). Older adults with PF&S were characterized by higher levels of asparagine, aspartic acid, citrulline, ethanolamine, glutamic acid, sarcosine, and taurine. The profile of nonPF& S participants was defined by higher concentrations of ff alpha-aminobutyric acid and methionine. Distinct profiles of circulating amino acids and derivatives characterize older people with PF&S. The dissection of these patterns may provide novel insights into the role played by protein/amino acid perturbations in the disabling cascade and possible new targets for interventions.

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

4.7
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