3.8 Article

Circulating differentiated and senescent lymphocyte subsets and incident diabetes risk in older adults: The Cardiovascular Health Study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/edm2.384

关键词

cellular senescence; diabetes mellitus; epidemiology; lymphocyte subsets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between senescent lymphocytes and diabetes is uncertain. This study found no significant associations between frequencies of naive, memory, and senescent T cells and memory B cells and the risk of incident diabetes in older adults.
Introduction Cellular senescence is a feature of aging implicated in the pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus (DM). Whether senescent lymphocytes are associated with the future occurrence of DM is uncertain. Methods We used cryopreserved peripheral blood mononuclear cells collected from 1860 Cardiovascular Health Study participants (average age 80.2 years) and flow cytometry immunophenotyping to evaluate the longitudinal relationships of naive (CD45RA(+)), memory (CD45RO(+)), senescent (CD28(-)), and T effector memory RA(+) (TEMRA) (CD28(-)CD57(+)CD45RA(+)) CD4(+) and CD8(+) T cells, and memory B cells (CD19(+)CD27(+)), with the risk of incident DM. In exploratory analyses we evaluated the relationships of 13 additional innate lymphocyte and CD4(+) and CD8(+) subsets with incident DM risk. Results Over a median follow-up time of 8.9 years, 155 cases of incident DM occurred. In Cox models adjusted for demographic variables (age, sex, race, study site and flow cytometry analytical batch) or diabetes risk factors (demographic variables plus education, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, systolic blood pressure, hypertension medication use and physical activity), no significant associations were observed for any CD4(+), CD8(+) or CD19(+) cell phenotypes with incident DM. Conclusions These results suggest the frequencies of naive, memory and senescent T cells and memory B cells are not strongly associated with incident DM risk in older adults.

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

3.8
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