Back

Sex-specific metabolic signatures of adiposity associated with clinical biomarkers in the UK Biobank

Papagiannopoulos, C. K.; Markozannes, G.; Chalitsios, C. V.; Christakoudi, S.; Gunter, M. J.; Dossus, L.; Martin, R. M.; Tzoulaki, I.; Papandreou, C.; Tsilidis, K. K.

2025-01-28 epidemiology
10.1101/2025.01.23.25321010 medRxiv
Show abstract

Excessive adiposity increases disease risk, yet the exact underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We compared sex-specific metabolic signatures (MSs) of adiposity indices (non-allometric: body fat %, waist circumference, hip circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, body mass index; allometric: a body shape index, hip index, waist-to-hip-index ratio) and examined their associations with 29 clinical biomarkers in 151,526 UK Biobank participants. MSs performance was validated in an independent cohort. In females, MSs mainly consisted of lipoprotein particle concentrations, apolipoproteins, fatty acids and inflammation-linked glycoprotein acetyls, whereas in males lipoproteins rich in cholesteryl esters and aromatic/branched-chain amino acids predominated. The highest percentages of common metabolites were observed between non-allometric adiposity indices (median: 42.4%; range: 9%-56%). MSs were independently associated with over 25 biomarkers with differences observed by sex and adiposity index, and these associations were stronger compared to the respective phenotypic associations. MSABSI was found to be more atherogenic, whereas MSHI was more favourable for health. This study highlights i) that different regions of adipose tissue undergo distinct metabolic processes overall and by sex, each having unique impact on health, and ii) the importance of considering metabolic factors beyond simple adiposity indices in assessing health risk.

Matching journals

The top 8 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.