Background: Obesity exhibits heterogeneity in physiological states and metabolic phenotypes cross individuals. A recent study identified a proteomics signature of obesity which better captures such heterogeneity than classical Body Mass Index (BMI). Aims: We aimed to create a proteomics-inferred BMI signature and investigate whether the proteomic-inferred BMI was associated with incident Type 2 Diabetes (T2D). Methods: This study included 34,317 adults in the UK Biobank who were free of T2D and had complete data on proteomics metrics assessed by antibody-based Olink assay. Sixty-seven pre-identified proteins were available and used to create the proteomic BMI signature. Cox proportional models were used to estimate the association between proteomic BMI signature and incident T2D. Results: The proteomic BMI signature was strongly correlated with actual BMI (Pearson correlation coefficients=0.75, P <0.001). During a mean follow-up of 13.2 years, a total of 1,651 T2D events were documented. We observed that per standard deviation increase in proteomic BMI signature was significantly associated with a 250% higher risk of T2D (HR, 2.50, 95%CI, 2.37, 2.64). Compared with the lowest Quartile, the HR (95%CI) for the Quartile 2 to the Quartile 4 of proteomic BMI signature were 2.06 (1.61, 2.64), 3.56 (2.83, 4.48), and 10.0 (8.08, 12.4), respectively ( P -trend<0.001). Also, we observed that the associations between proteomic BMI signature and incident T2D were stronger in women than men ( P for interaction < 0.001). Compared with the lowest Quartile, the HR (95%CI) for highest Quartile of proteomic BMI signature were 16.63 (9.75, 28.36) for women and 8.06 (6.37, 10.19) for men. Conclusions: Higher proteomics-inferred BMI was significantly associated with higher risk of incident T2D, and such association was stronger in women than men. Our results suggest that proteomic BMI signature may serve as a surrogate metabolic indicator to better understand the mechanism underlying the association of BMI and T2D.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: