Back

Novel subgroups of type 2 diabetes based on multi-Omics profiling: an IMI-RHAPSODY Study

Li, S.; Dragan, I.; Fung, C.; Kuznetsov, D.; Hansen, M.; Beulens, J.; 't Hart, L.; Slieker, R.; Donnelly, L.; Gerl, M.; Klose, C.; Mehl, f.; Simons, K.; Elders, P.; Pearson, E.; Rutter, G.; Ibberson, M.

2022-09-04 endocrinology
10.1101/2022.09.03.22279563 medRxiv
Show abstract

Type 2 diabetes is a complex, multifactorial disease with varying presentation and underlying pathophysiology. Recent studies using data-driven cluster analysis have led to a stratification of type 2 diabetes into novel subgroups based on six clinical measurements. Whether these subgroups truly correspond to the underlying phenotypic differences is nevertheless unclear. Here, we apply an unsupervised, data-driven clustering method (Similarity Network Fusion) to characterize type 2 diabetes in two independent cohorts involving 1,134 subjects in total based on integrated plasma lipidomics and peptidomics data without pre-selection. Logistic regression was then used to explore clustering based on [≥] 180 circulating lipids and 1,195 protein biomarkers, alongside clinical signatures. Two subgroups were identified, one of which associated with elevated C-peptide levels, diabetic complications and more severe insulin resistance compared to the other. GWAS analysis against 403 type 2 diabetes risk variants revealed associations of several SNPs with clusters and altered molecular profiles. We thus demonstrate that heterogeneity in type 2 diabetes can be captured by circulating omics alone using an unsupervised bottom-up approach. Such multiomics signatures could reflect pathological mechanisms underlying type 2 diabetes and thus may help inform on precision medicine approaches to disease management.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.