• Can inflammation biomarkers classify different forms of diabetes?

    Diabetes is a complex disease characterized by a combination of different and little understood, causes. The current classification system for the disease characterizes diabetes into three broad types: type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and gestational diabetes, but these three categories do not adequately reflect its sheer heterogeneity.

    This has severe negative implications for the planning of treatment regimens and identifying which patients are at risk of developing complications or comorbidities. Building on previous research which identified five novel diabetes subgroups in Scandinavian diabetes patient cohorts, this study sought to comprehensively characterize differences in inflammation biomarkers between these subgroups using Olink’s inflammation biomarker panel.

    What are the 5 diabetes subgroups and why could inflammation biomarkers differentiate between them?

    Using cluster analysis to analyze data from Scandinavian diabetes patient cohorts, a previous study identified five diabetes subgroups.

    information-icon

    Diabetes subgroups

    1. Severe autoimmune diabetes
    2. Severe insulin-deficient diabetes
    3. Severe insulin-resistant diabetes
    4. Mild obesity-related diabetes
    5. Mild age-related diabetes

    Each subgroup was defined by a distinct progression trajectory of diabetes-related complications related to differences in genetic, clinical, and metabolic factors.

    Inflammatory processes play a huge role in complications from diabetes; therefore, it is likely that differences in the levels of these inflammation biomarkers may lead to different complication outcomes. However, to date, there has been little research done on inflammation biomarkers in this context. Using the Olink inflammation biomarker panel, one of the most comprehensive multimarker protein panels available, researchers analyzed 414 individuals with recent-onset diabetes from the German Diabetes Study (GDS) who had been allocated to the above 5 different subgroups. The cross-sectional study also used glucose tolerant individuals as controls.

    Researchers then looked at pairwise differences between biomarkers before, and after adjustment for the clustering variables between subgroups, which included age at diagnosis, BMI, and blood sugar levels in the blood (HbA1c test).

    Inflammation biomarkers do differentiate between different diabetes subgroups, with varying efficacy

    Before adjustment for clustering variables, inflammation biomarker comparison between the five subgroups showed differences in serum levels in 26 out of 74 biomarkers. Biomarker levels were especially high in individuals with severe insulin-resistant diabetes, and lowest in individuals with severe insulin-deficient diabetes. The other three groups showed intermediate levels of inflammation biomarkers.

    After adjusting for clustering variables, 13 out of the initial 26 biomarkers were significantly different between the five diabetes subgroups. However, three inflammation biomarkers were particularly pronounced: Casp-8, EN-RAGE, and IL-6. Most differences in serum inflammation biomarker levels were found when comparing individuals with severe insulin-resistant diabetes and those with severe insulin-deficient diabetes, with higher serum levels found in the former subgroup. None of the biomarkers differed after adjustment for the other three subgroups.

    Investigation of inflammation biomarkers gives further insight into the pathophysiology of diabetes

    The differences in inflammation biomarker profiles in each subgroup complement existing research on the pathophysiology of diabetes. For example, the result that the severe insulin resistance diabetes subgroup showed such high levels of inflammation biomarkers reflects that there is a close relationship between insulin resistance and inflammation evidenced by past studies, especially with regards to obesity. Apart from the high degree of insulin resistance, individuals with this form of diabetes are at higher risk of developing diabetes-related comorbidities. The severe insulin-deficient diabetes subgroup represents the opposite extreme compared to the former subgroup; therefore, it is unsurprising that individuals in this subgroup demonstrated the lowest levels of inflammatory biomarkers compared to the other four subgroups.

    icon-quote-t_green

    IL-6 levels may play different roles in disease progression in the diabetes subgroups, depending on the type

    Of the 74 inflammation biomarkers for which data was available, significant differences were found for three of them. Casp-8 is a cytosolic cysteine protease that mediates programmed cell death, and in diabetes is involved with B-cell apoptosis. Higher levels of circulating Casp-8 have been associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in previous studies. Higher levels of EN-RAGE have also been linked to type 2 diabetes, as well as incident prediabetes. IL-6 levels have been related to inflammation of adipose tissue but also display pro-inflammatory properties which counteract metabolic stress and insulin resistance. Therefore, IL-6 levels may play different roles in disease progression in the diabetes subgroups, depending on the type.

    icon-9.1

    The researchers conclude that their results demonstrate different inflammation biomarker profiles for the five diabetes subgroups, but further research, especially in a longitudinal cohort, is required to verify the above results as well as determine the extent to which these biomarkers may contribute to differences in diabetes-related complications in the different subgroups.

    Read more about this study

    References

    🔗 Differences in Biomarkers of Inflammation Between Novel Subgroups of recent-onset Diabetes

    🔗 Novel subgroups of adult-onset diabetes and their association with outcomes: a data-driven cluster analysis of six variables

    How the proteome behaves in healthy individuals

    Clinical research, Multiomics
    To achieve the goal of precision medicine, not only do different molecular profiles need to be understood in disease populations, but they must also be understood in the context of healthy populations.

    Key proteomics publications from 2020

    Proteomics
    Welcome to the first post of the all-new weekly Olink to Science! Our customer survey revealed that you would like to know more about the many publications, research, and other science happening at Olink, therefore this blog aims to do just that: keep you informed on the exciting science taking place with our technology.

    Protein biomarkers are crucial in early detection of cancer

    Clinical research, Oncology, Protein biomarkers
    A central premise of precision medicine is to identify biomarkers indicative of disease transitions early on. This is especially important in cancer where early treatment intervention could increase a patient’s chance of survival and reduce the probability of cancer recurrence.

    Using PEA and RNA-Seq to study disease pathology

    Clinical research, Proteomics
    The following study illustrates how transcriptomics and proteomics complement one another to clarify the pathology of a complex, and little understood disease. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most common chronic skin condition affecting up to 20% of children and 7-10% of adults, depending on the population.

    Olink protein biomarker panel indicates fermented foods fight inflammation

    Inflammation, Proteomics
    Could food be used to fight chronic disease?

    Study identifies proteins involved in immunotherapy response

    Oncology, Proteomics
    'Ultimately, it is all about understanding and treating patients better in the future.'

    Proteins diagnostic of lung cancer up to 5 years before disease onset

    Oncology
    An earlier Olink to Science blog post covered some amazing research that found that certain blood protein biomarkers have the potential to predict cancer up to 3 years before diagnosis. This may also be the case for lung cancer, as detailed in a recent study by Dagnino and her colleagues, where elevated levels of CDCP1 were detected in participants of a cohort who later developed the disease.

    Utilizing proteogenomics technology for novel drug target discovery

    Drug discovery & development
    High-throughput multiplexed proteomic technology is leading the way to the latest developments in pre-clinical disease analysis in drug discovery. The pharmaceutical industry is now increasing its efforts in the discovery of novel drug targets by using protein quantitative trait loci (pQTLs), which allows for a more confident inference of disease causality and associated protein regulation.

    Developing a high-performance biomarker panel for Alzheimer’s disease

    Clinical research, Neurology, Protein biomarkers
    A simple search of the term ‘scourge of Alzheimer’s Disease’ brings up over half a million website hits. A major disease, about 15% of us that reach the age of 67 to 74, and 44% of those 75 to 84 will develop AD.

    How proteomics helped diabetic kidney disease research advance

    Clinical research, Proteomics
    Dr. Krolewski and his team at the Harvard Medical School found 56 proteins to be significant in diabetic kidney disease patients. Potentially, these could serve as prognostic biomarkers for disease progression and treatment response. This is how adding proteomics to the methodologies elevated their research.