Inverse association of plasma hydrogen sulfide levels with visceral fat area among Chinese young men: a cross-sectional study

Fan, Dongmei; Huang, Huiyan; Wang, Xing; Liu, Junru; Liu, Bowei; Yin, Fuzai

doi:10.20945/2359-3997000000339

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Arch. Endocrinol. Metab. 65 (3) • May-Jun 2021 • https://doi.org/10.20945/2359-3997000000339 copy

Inverse association of plasma hydrogen sulfide levels with visceral fat area among Chinese young men: a cross-sectional study

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

To investigate the association between plasma Hydrogen Sulfide (H₂S) levels and visceral fat area (VFA) among Chinese young men.

Subjects and methods:

This cross-sectional study involved 156 Chinese male subjects, aged 18–45 years, who visited the First Hospital of Qinhuangdao (Hebei, China) in 2014 for annual health check-up. Participants were categorized into: low (VFA < 75.57 cm²), medium (75.57 cm² ≤ VFA<100.37 cm²), and high (VFA ≥ 100.37 cm²) (n = 52/group). We estimated VFA and plasma H₂S levels by using bioelectrical impedance analysis and a fluorescence probe-based approach, respectively. The associations of H₂S with VFA and obesity anthropometric measures were assessed.

Results:

In the high VFA group, the body mass index (BMI, 30.4 ± 2.45 kg/m²), total body fat (TBF, 27.9 ± 3.23 kg), plasma H₂S (3.5 μmol/L), free fatty acid (FFA, 0.6 ± 0.24 mmol/L), triglyceride (TG, 2.0 mmol/L), and total cholesterol (TC, 5.5 ± 1.02 mmol/L) levels were significantly higher than that of those of the low and medium VFA groups, respectively (P < 0.05). Plasma H₂S levels were found to be inversely correlated with VFA, TBF, waist circumference, BMI, FFA, LnFINS, LnHOMA-IR, LnTG, TC, and LDL-C (P < 0.05). Multiple backward stepwise regression analysis revealed an inverse correlation of plasma H₂S levels with FFA (β = −0.214, P = 0.005) and VFA (β = −0.429, P < 0.001), independent of adiposity measures and other confounding factors.

Conclusion:

VFA was independently and inversely associated with plasma H₂S levels among Chinese young men. Therefore, determining plasma H₂S levels could aid in the assessment of abnormal VAT distribution.

Keywords
Hydrogen sulfide; visceral fat; correlation study; bioelectrical impedance; free fatty acids

Characteristic variable	VFA			P value
Characteristic variable	Low <75.57 cm² (n = 52)	Medium 75.57-100.37 cm² (n = 52)	High ≥100.37 cm² (n = 52)	P value
Age (years)	35.6 ± 6.02	36.2 ± 6.19	34.5 ± 6.41	0.345
Weight (kg)	72.4 ± 6.62	83.4 ± 6.71	96.1 ± 10.81	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
TBF (kg)	15.3 ± 2.93	21.9 ± 2.43^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	27.9 ± 3.23^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
WC (cm)	84.3 ± 7.98	95.8 ± 4.73^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	102.2 ± 6.12^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
BMI (kg/m²)	23.8 ± 2.42	27.8 ± 1.96^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	30.4 ± 2.45^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
SBP (mmHg)	123.1 ± 13.71	129.9 ± 13.13^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	130 ± 13.12^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	0.012^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
DBP (mmHg)	81.3 ± 9.59	83.7 ± 10.94	85.6 ± 9.78	0.105
H2S (μmol/L)	4.9 (4.08, 6.15)	3.9 (3.30, 4.18)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	3.5 (2.91, 3.96)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
FFA (mmol/L)	0.4 ± 0.16	0.5 ± 0.19^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	0.6 ± 0.24^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	0.012^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
FBG (mmol/L)	5.5 ± 0.51	5.5 ± 0.56	5.9 ± 1.09^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	0.005^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
FINS (uIU/mL)	8.8 (7.54, 11.51)	10.6 (9.04, 13.71)	12.9 (9.11, 17.84)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	0.001^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
HOMA-IR	2.2 (1.74, 3.00)	2.7 (2.21, 3.36)	3.4 (2.36, 4.81)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group. ^§	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
TG (mmol/L)	1.2 (0.96, 2.09)	1.6 (1.12, 2.71)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	2.0 (1.42, 2.75)^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
TC (mmol/L)	4.9 ± 0.72	5.2 ± 1.12	5.5 ± 1.02^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	0.004^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
HDL-c (mmol/L)	1.2 ± 0.30	1.1 ± 0.23^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	1.1 ± 0.24^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	0.001^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
LDL-c (mmol/L)	3.0 ± 0.77	3.5 ± 0.90^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	3.8 ± 1.10^# # Compared with low VFA group. §Compared with medium VFA group.	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Variable	r	P value
Age (years)	-0.045	0.576
VFA (cm²)	-0.502	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
TBF (kg)	-0.403	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
WC (cm)	-0.430	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
BMI (kg/m²)	-0.460	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
SBP (mmHg)	-0.154	0.056
DBP (mmHg)	-0.157	0.051
FFA (mmol/L)	-0.298	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
FBG (mmol/L)	-0.071	0.377
LnFINS	-0.283	0.003^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
LnHOMA-IR	-0.240	0.003^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
LnTG	-0.207	0.009^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
TC (mmol/L)	-0.221	0.006^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.
HDL-C (mmol/L)	0.074	0.391
LDL-C (mmol/L)	-0.289	<0.05^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Variables	Unadjusted β-coefficient	S.E.	β-coefficient^a a The estimates were adjusted for the confounding effects of age, BMI (body mass index), WC (waist circumference), TBF (total body fat), FINS (fasting insulin), HOMA-IR (Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance), TG (triglyceride), TC (total cholesterol), and LDL-C (low density lipoprotein-cholesterol).	t	P value	r ²
VFA	-0.006	0.001	-0.429	-5.685	<0.001^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.	0.256
FFA	-0.382	0.135	-0.214	-2.834	0.005^* * P < 0.05 was considered significant.	0.040

Sociedade Brasileira de Endocrinologia e Metabologia Rua Botucatu, 572 - Conjuntos 81/83, 04023-061 São Paulo SP Brasil, Tel: (55 11) 5575-0311 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: aem.editorial.office@endocrino.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Correspondence to: Fuzai Yin, Department of Endocrinology, The First Hospital of Qinhuangdao, Qinhuangdao 066000, Hebei Province, China. yinfu_zai@163.com