4.7 Article

Decreased Cord-Blood Phospholipids in Young Age-at-Onset Type 1 Diabetes

期刊

DIABETES
卷 62, 期 11, 页码 3951-3956

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db13-0215

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Lund University Diabetes Centre
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. European Union 7th Framework Programme: DIAPREPP [202013]
  5. Swedish Diabetes Association Research Fund
  6. Academy of Finland
  7. Centre of Excellence in Molecular Systems Immunology and Physiology Research [2012-2017, 250114]
  8. Childhood Diabetes Foundation
  9. Skane County Council for Research and Development
  10. UMAS Funds

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children developing type 1 diabetes may have risk markers already in their umbilical cord blood. It is hypothesized that the risk for type 1 diabetes at an early age may be increased by a pathogenic pregnancy and be reflected in altered cord-blood composition. This study used metabolomics to test if the cord-blood lipidome was affected in children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before 8 years of age. The present case-control study of 76 index children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before 8 years of age and 76 healthy control subjects matched for HLA risk, sex, and date of birth, as well as the mother's age and gestational age, revealed that cord-blood phosphatidylcholines and phosphatidylethanolamines were significantly decreased in children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes before 4 years of age. Reduced levels of triglycerides correlated to gestational age in index and control children and to age at diagnosis only in the index children. Finally, gestational infection during the first trimester was associated with lower cord-blood total lysophosphatidylcholines in index and control children. In conclusion, metabolomics of umbilical cord blood may identify children at increased risk for type 1 diabetes. Low phospholipid levels at birth may represent key mediators of the immune system and contribute to early induction of islet autoimmunity.

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