4.6 Article

Acylated and nonacylated ghrelin levels and their associations with insulin resistance in obese and normal weight children with metabolic syndrome

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ENDOCRINOLOGY
卷 161, 期 6, 页码 861-870

出版社

BIOSCIENTIFICA LTD
DOI: 10.1530/EJE-09-0375

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Ghrelin. a peptide mainly derived from the stomach, plays a pivotal role in the regulation of food intake, energy metabolism, and storage, as well as in insulin sensitivity Ghrelin circulates in acylated (A-Ghr) and nonacylated (NA-Ghr) forms. and their potential differential associations with insulin resistance (IR) in childhood obesity remain undefined. Objective: We investigated the associations of ghrelin forms with IR in normal weight and obese children and the impact of metabolic syndrome (MS) on their plasma values. Design. A total of 210 children in four subgroups of normal weight/obese children with and without components of MS were studied. Fasting blood glucose, insulin, lipid profile, and acylated and total ghrelin were examined IR was determined by a homeostasis model assessment (HOMA) of IR. Results: In the entire population, plasma insulin and HOMA-IR were associated negatively with T-Ghr and NA-Ghr, but positively with the ratio of A/NA-Ghr after adjustment for age, gender, and Tanner stage. Obese metabolically abnormal children had lower T-Ghr and NA-Ghr, but comparable A-Ghr and a higher A/NA-Ghr ratio than obese metabolically normal subjects Compared with lean healthy children. lean metabolically abnormal subjects had higher A-Ghr and the A/NA-Ghr ratio, but comparable T-Ghr and NA-Ghr. A multiple regression analysis showed that A-Ghr and the A/NA-Ghr ratios were positively associated with HOMA-IR, independent of age, gender, Tanner stage, and body mass index (or waist circumference) and other components of MS. Conclusions A-Ghr excess may negatively modulate insulin action in obese and nonobese children, and may contribute to the association of IR and MS.

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

4.6
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