4.7 Article

Metabolite Profiles of Diabetes Incidence and Intervention Response in the Diabetes Prevention Program

期刊

DIABETES
卷 65, 期 5, 页码 1424-1433

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db15-1063

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) [DK081572, DK099249]
  2. NIDDK
  3. Indian Health Service during the DPP
  4. Office of Minority Health
  5. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  6. National Institute on Aging
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  8. Office of Research on Women's Health
  9. American Diabetes Association
  10. DPP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying novel biomarkers of type 2 diabetes risk may improve prediction and prevention among individuals at high risk of the disease and elucidate new biological pathways relevant to diabetes development. We performed plasma metabolite profiling in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a completed trial that randomized high-risk individuals to lifestyle, metformin, or placebo interventions. Previously reported markers, branched-chain and aromatic amino acids and glutamine/glutamate, were associated with incident diabetes (P < 0.05 for all), but these associations were attenuated upon adjustment for clinical and biochemical measures. By contrast, baseline levels of betaine, also known as glycine betaine (hazard ratio 0.84 per SD log metabolite level, P = 0.02), and three other metabolites were associated with incident diabetes even after adjustment. Moreover, betaine was increased by the lifestyle intervention, which was the most effective approach to preventing diabetes, and increases in betaine at 2 years were also associated with lower diabetes incidence (P = 0.01). Our findings indicate betaine is a marker of diabetes risk among high-risk individuals both at baseline and during preventive interventions and they complement animal models demonstrating a direct role for betaine in modulating metabolic health.

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