MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285728547 · doi:10.1186/s13073-022-01077-z

Adipose methylome integrative-omic analyses reveal genetic and dietary metabolic health drivers and insulin resistance classifiers

2022· article· en· W4285728547 on OpenAlexaff
Colette Christiansen, Max Tomlinson, Melissa Eliot, Emma Nilsson, Ricardo Costeira, Yujing Xia, Sergio Villicaña, Olatz Mompeó, Philippa M. Wells, Juan Castillo‐Fernandez, Louis Potier, Marie‐Claude Vohl, André Tchernof, Julia S. El-Sayed Moustafa, Cristina Menni, Claire J. Steves, Karl T. Kelsey, Charlotte Ling, Elin Grundberg, Kerrin S. Small, Jordana T. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersVetenskapsrådetAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilJoint Programming Initiative A healthy diet for a healthy lifeWellcome TrustMedical Research CouncilWellcome
KeywordsEpigeneticsDNA methylationInsulin resistanceBiologyEpigenomeAdipose tissueBody mass indexMethylationMetabolic syndromeBioinformaticsMetabolomicsGeneticsPhenotypeEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineObesityGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence for the importance of the DNA methylome in metabolic health, for example, a robust methylation signature has been associated with body mass index (BMI). However, visceral fat (VF) mass accumulation is a greater risk factor for metabolic disease than BMI alone. In this study, we dissect the subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) methylome signature relevant to metabolic health by focusing on VF as the major risk factor of metabolic disease. We integrate results with genetic, blood methylation, SAT gene expression, blood metabolomic, dietary intake and metabolic phenotype data to assess and quantify genetic and environmental drivers of the identified signals, as well as their potential functional roles. METHODS: Epigenome-wide association analyses were carried out to determine visceral fat mass-associated differentially methylated positions (VF-DMPs) in SAT samples from 538 TwinsUK participants. Validation and replication were performed in 333 individuals from 3 independent cohorts. To assess functional impacts of the VF-DMPs, the association between VF and gene expression was determined at the genes annotated to the VF-DMPs and an association analysis was carried out to determine whether methylation at the VF-DMPs is associated with gene expression. Further epigenetic analyses were carried out to compare methylation levels at the VF-DMPs as the response variables and a range of different metabolic health phenotypes including android:gynoid fat ratio (AGR), lipids, blood metabolomic profiles, insulin resistance, T2D and dietary intake variables. The results from all analyses were integrated to identify signals that exhibit altered SAT function and have strong relevance to metabolic health. RESULTS: We identified 1181 CpG positions in 788 genes to be differentially methylated with VF (VF-DMPs) with significant enrichment in the insulin signalling pathway. Follow-up cross-omic analysis of VF-DMPs integrating genetics, gene expression, metabolomics, diet, and metabolic traits highlighted VF-DMPs located in 9 genes with strong relevance to metabolic disease mechanisms, with replication of signals in FASN, SREBF1, TAGLN2, PC and CFAP410. PC methylation showed evidence for mediating effects of diet on VF. FASN DNA methylation exhibited putative causal effects on VF that were also strongly associated with insulin resistance and methylation levels in FASN better classified insulin resistance (AUC=0.91) than BMI or VF alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings help characterise the adiposity-associated methylation signature of SAT, with insights for metabolic disease risk.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome MedicineSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207