Next Article in Journal
Effects of Anticoccidial Vaccination and Taraxacum officinale Extract on the Growth Performance, Biochemical Parameters, Immunity, and Intestinal Morphology of Eimeria-Challenged Chickens
Next Article in Special Issue
L-Arginine-Dependent Nitric Oxide Production in the Blood of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Pilot, Five-Year Prospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
COVID-19 Vaccination and Serological Profile of a Brazilian University Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
Cardiovascular Effects of Weight Loss in Obese Patients with Diabetes: Is Bariatric Surgery the Additional Arrow in the Quiver?
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Body Mass Index and Duration of Disease on Chromosome Damage in Lymphocytes of Patients with Diabetes

by
Laura Šiaulienė
1,2,*,
Jūratė Kazlauskaitė
1,
Dalia Jurkėnaitė
1,
Žydrūnė Visockienė
2,3 and
Juozas R. Lazutka
1,*
1
Vilnius University Life Sciences Center, Saulėtekio Al. 7, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos, Santariškių St. 2, LT-08661 Vilnius, Lithuania
3
Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, M. K. Čiurlionio St. 21, LT-03101, Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2023, 13(9), 1926; https://doi.org/10.3390/life13091926
Submission received: 7 August 2023 / Revised: 7 September 2023 / Accepted: 14 September 2023 / Published: 16 September 2023

Abstract

:
It is well-established that patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have a higher incidence of several types of cancer. The precise mechanisms of this association are still unknown, but obesity and chronic inflammation-induced reactive oxygen species (ROS) are thought to be the main risk factors. ROS may produce different DNA damage, which could eventually lead to cancer. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the relation of chromosome aberrations (CA) with disease status, demographics, and clinical parameters in 33 subjects with type 1 DM (T1DM), 22 subjects with type 2 DM (T2DM), and 21 controls. CAs were analyzed in cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes and subdivided into chromatid (CTA)- and chromosome (CSA)-type aberrations. Compared with controls, higher levels of CTAs and CSAs were observed in T1DM (p = 0.0053 and p = 0.0203, respectively) and T2DM (p = 0.0133 and p = 0.00002, respectively). While there was no difference in CTAs between T1DM and T2DM, CSAs were higher in T2DM (p = 0.0173). A significant positive association between CTAs and disease duration (rs = 0.2938, p = 0.0099) and between CSAs and disease duration (rs = 0.4306, p = 0.0001), age (rs = 0.3932, p = 0.0004), and body mass index (BMI) (rs = 0.3502, p = 0.0019) was revealed. After multiple regression analysis, duration of disease remained significant for CTA, CSA, and CAs (p = 0.0042, p = 0.00003, and p = 0.00002, respectively). For CSA, BMI and the use of statins were the other important confounding variables (p = 0.0105 and p = 0.0763). Thus, this study demonstrated that both T1DM and T2DM patients had a higher number of all types of aberrations than controls, which increases with the prolonged disease duration. Higher BMI was associated with a higher frequency of CSA. The use of statins might be beneficial for reducing chromosome damage, but further investigations are needed to confirm this association.

1. Introduction

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder characterized by impaired insulin secretion and/or insulin action resulting in hyperglycemia [1]. The most common are type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes, which constitute about 5–10% and 90–95% of total diabetes cases, respectively [2]. Both types manifest with sustained hyperglycemia, which is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and microvascular complications, such as diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. According to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), DM is one of the leading causes of premature death and was responsible for 6.7 million deaths in 2021 [3].
The progression of diabetes complications is associated with several pathogenetic pathways. One of the most recognized is the overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the consequent increment of oxidative stress, which causes oxidative damage to different cellular molecules such as carbohydrates, lipids, and DNA [4]. Hyperglycemia in both types of diabetes induces the production of ROS via multiple pathogenetic pathways, whereas other comorbidities, more commonly associated with T2DM and chronic inflammation, such as obesity, dyslipidemia, and hypertension, might further enhance the progression of oxidative damage [5].
Epidemiological studies report that patients with diabetes have a higher incidence of several types of cancer, such as hepatic, pancreatic, endometrial, colorectal, bladder, and breast cancers [6,7]. Excess cancer risk and higher cancer-related mortality are common in both T1DM and T2DM [8]. The precise mechanisms of this association are still unknown, but hyperinsulinemia, hyperglycemia, obesity, and chronic inflammation-induced ROS are thought to be the main risk factors [9]. Inflammation may produce different DNA damage, including single- and double-strand breaks [10] that could lead to chromosome aberrations [11] or genomic instability [12]. On the other hand, chromosome aberrations are well-known predictors of cancer risk [13], with chromosome-type aberrations being more strongly predictive than chromatid-type aberrations [14].
The first studies on chromosome damage in patients with diabetes were published more than four decades ago [15,16]. Although, since that time, several dozens of papers on DNA damage in diabetes were published [17,18,19], most of them used Comet assay or micronuclei (MN) as biomarkers, and only a few used chromosome aberrations.
Thus, our study aims to analyze chromosome aberrations (CA) in peripheral blood lymphocytes from patients with T1DM and T2DM and control subjects. Specific types of chromosome aberrations (chromatid breaks, chromatid exchanges, chromosome breaks, and chromosome exchanges) were recorded separately, enabling us to evaluate their relation with disease status and different demographic and clinical parameters using univariate and multivariate models.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Subjects

A cross-sectional study was conducted at Vilnius University Hospital Santaros Klinikos (VUHSK) Endocrinology Center from August 2019 to June 2022. Subjects with T1DM, T2DM, and controls without DM, aged 18 years and older, were included in the study except for those with malignant, severe uncontrolled systemic diseases, mental illnesses, pregnancy, or breastfeeding. A total of 33 T1DM, 22 T2DM, and 21 controls were enrolled. Diagnosis of diabetes was established according to medical records or, for subjects with newly diagnosed diabetes, according to World Health Organization diagnostic criteria [20]. The control group consisted of VUHSK staff/workers, their relatives, and Vilnius University students. To exclude the diagnosis of diabetes, the control group underwent morning fasting venous plasma glucose (FPG) testing, and those with FPG less than 6 mmol/L were enrolled in the study.
Medical history of all subjects was collected from the interview by a trained endocrinologist and from medical records. Heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), body weight (BW), height, and body mass index (BMI) were measured during physical examination. Hypertension was diagnosed if blood pressure was at or above 140/90 mmHg for several measurements or if the patient was using antihypertensive treatment.
Subjects with diabetes were tested for blood lipids, and dyslipidemia was diagnosed according to the European Society of Cardiology Guidelines [21] or in case of statin use. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) data were collected from medical records, and poor glycemic control was considered if at least two recent HbA1c values were more than 7 mmol/mol.
Subjects with diabetes underwent evaluation for diabetic polyneuropathy (DPN) using Neuropathy Symptom Score (NSS) and Neuropathy Disability Score (NDS), as described previously [22]. Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) was assessed using cardiovascular autonomic reflex tests (CARTs) [23]. The diagnosis of diabetic nephropathy was based on information from medical records.
The study was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by Vilnius Regional Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (registry number 2019/6-1146-635). All participants gave written consent.

2.2. Cytogenetic Procedures

Peripheral blood lymphocytes were obtained via venipuncture, and heparinized whole blood was diluted at a ratio of 1:15 with RPM1 1640 media supplemented with 12% heat-inactivated newborn calf serum, 7.8 μg/mL of phytohemagglutinin, and 50 μg/mL of gentamicin. All reagents were purchased from Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA). Cells were cultured in sterile bottles for 48 h at 37 °C in 5% CO2 atmosphere. Colchicine was added into the culture for the last 3 h at a final concentration of 0.6 μg/mL. Cultures were harvested with centrifugation, followed by 30 min hypotonic treatment (0.075M KCl at 37 °C) and three periods of fixation in ethanol–glacial acetic acid (3:1)). Flame-dried slides were prepared and stained for 10 min with Giemsa stain diluted with distilled water (1:9).
Chromosome aberrations were scored on coded slides using bright-field microscope Nikon Eclipse E200 (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). At least 200 cells per individual were scored. The cells were selected for centromere number no less than 44, good morphology, and clear staining. The best of duplicate cultures was used first, and the other used if necessary to obtain a sufficient number of cells. Each aberration was confirmed by at least two scorers.
Aberrations were scored as individual types, but for statistical analysis, were grouped as listed below.
Chromatid-type aberrations (CTA): chromatid breaks (CTB)—discontinuities more than the width of a chromatid or discontinuities equal to the width of a chromatid with displacement from the chromatid axis and without visible connecting material; chromatid exchanges (CTE)—triradials, symmetrical and asymmetrical quadriradials, chromatid inter- and intrachanges, as well as isochromatid breaks with sister union.
Chromosome-type aberrations (CSA): chromosome breaks (CSB)—terminal breaks without sister union, acentric fragments in the absence of an aberration that could have generated the fragment, and interstitial deletions (acentric rings and double minutes); chromosome exchanges (CSE)—polycentric chromosomes (dicentrics, tricentrics, etc.), ring chromosomes, translocations, and inversions. When an acentric fragment was found accompanying a polycentric or ring chromosome, the combination was scored as one aberration.
Representative images of each group of aberrations are shown in Figure 1.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were characterized using frequencies, and a chi-square test was used to compare the frequencies of nominal variables. Quantitative variables were expressed as mean, and a comparison between two groups was made using the Mann–Whitney U-test and between three groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test. For multiple regression analysis, chromosome aberration data were transformed through average square root transformation: Y = 0.5[(X)0.5 + (X + 1)0.5], where X is the number of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells and Y is the transformed variable. This transformation was shown to be effective in stabilizing dispersion [24]. All independent variables listed in Table 1 were included into the primary multiple regression models. The best subset of independent variables was selected with stepwise multiple regression based on p and variance inflation factor (VIF) values. Final models were selected based on R-square, coefficient of multiple correlation, and goodness of fit criteria. All models were validated using residual normality, lack of multicollinearity, and the priori power of >0.8. All statistical calculations were performed using the online statistical calculator Statistics Kingdom [25].

3. Results

We studied chromosome aberrations in peripheral blood lymphocytes obtained from 33 patients with T1DM, 22 with T2DM, and 21 subjects without diabetes. The demographic and clinical data of study subjects are presented in Table 1. The proportion of males was significantly higher in T1DM as compared with the control group. Patients with T2DM were statistically significantly older, more often had relatives with diabetes, and more often were diagnosed with obesity, dyslipidemia, and arterial hypertension (AH), leading to a higher prevalence of antihypertensive drugs and statin use compared with T1DM and controls. However, there was no difference in diabetes duration and microvascular complications between subjects with diabetes. Seventy-nine percent of T1DM and sixty-eight percent of T2DM patients were treated with insulin, and eighty-two percent of T2DM patients were on metformin.
Multivariate methods of statistical analysis were needed due to the somewhat imbalanced demographic and clinical parameters of the studied groups of subjects. However, we first performed a series of univariate tests to better select dependent and independent variables for multivariate analysis.
As a first step, we analyzed the frequency of CTB, CTE, CSB, CSE, and total frequency of aberrations per 100 cells in different groups of studied subjects using the Kruskal–Wallis test (Table 2). Clear inter-group variability in mean values was found for CTB (p = 0.0059), CSB (p = 0.0002), and total CAs (p = 0.0002). Differences in mean values of CTE were not significant (p = 0.8981), while in the case of CSE, borderline significance was found (p = 0.0503). A statistically significant (p = 0.0159, Mann–Whitney U-test) difference in CSE values was found when we compared control subjects with pooled group of patients with diabetes. However, the frequencies of both CTE and CSE were too low for any further meaningful statistical analysis—these types of aberrations were not found at all in 15 control subjects, 15 T1DM, and 11 T2DM patients. Thus, for subsequent analysis, CTB and CTE were combined into the CTAs (chromatid-type aberrations) group, while the CSB and CSE were combined into the CSAs (chromosome-type aberrations) group.
Figure 2 shows the frequencies of CTAs and CSAs in different groups of studied subjects. Higher levels of CTAs were observed in both T1DM and T2DM groups as compared with controls (p = 0.0053 and p = 0.0133, respectively; Mann–Whitney U-test), while there was no difference in CTA mean values between the two groups of patients with diabetes (p = 0.9347). For the CSA, mean values in T1DM and T2DM patients were significantly higher than those in controls (p = 0.0203 and p = 0.00002, respectively), but in T2DM patients they were also higher than in T1DM patients (p = 0.0173).
We further analyzed how different demographic and clinical parameters could influence the frequency of chromosome aberrations. Table 3 shows the distribution of CTAs, CSA, and total aberrations in the studied groups of individuals according to their categorical demographic and clinical variables. However, no statistically significant associations were found, and the standardized effect sizes were small. On the contrary, such variables as BMI, disease duration, and age had quite clear influence on some categories of chromosome aberrations. For CTAs, there was a statistically significant positive correlation with duration of disease (rs = 0.2938, p = 0.0099; Figure 3), but no significant correlation was found with age (rs = 0.1754, p = 0.1295) and BMI (rs = 0.0391, p = 0.7370). For CSA, there was a statistically significant positive correlation with all three variables—duration of disease (rs = 0.4306, p = 0.0001; Figure 3), age (rs = 0.3932, p = 0.0004), and BMI (rs = 0.3502, p = 0.0019; Figure 4). However, it is evident that subject‘s age and disease duration are highly correlated variables (rs = 0.4306, p = 0.0001), so we should consider this during further calculations.
Multiple regression was introduced as the final step of the analysis. Since the mean values of chromosome aberrations are not normally distributed (Figure 2 and Figure 3), the frequency of aberrations (CTA, CSA, and total CA) per 100 cells was transformed using the formula Y = 0.5[(X)0.5 + (X + 1)0.5], where X is the number of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells, and Y is the transformed variable. The results of the D’Agostino–Pearson test indicated that there is no significant difference from the normal distribution for all three transformed variables—CTAt, CSAt, and CAt (p = 0.6010, p = 0.3571, and p = 0.4813, respectively). We used stepwise multiple regression to select the best subset of independent variables. The best model for the transformed frequency of CSA, showing the highest R-square, goodness of fit, and coefficient of multiple correlation values, included variables such as BMI, duration of disease, and use of statins (Table 4). For comparison purposes, we included these variables in the multiple regression models for transformed values of CTAs and total CAs, even though the influence of some of these variables was clearly not significant. For all three variables—CTAt, CSAt, and CAt—the most significant confounding variable was the duration of disease (p = 0.0042, p = 0.00003, and p = 0.00002, respectively), showing a positive relationship between the number of aberrations and years that have passed since the diagnosis. No other variables had a statistically significant influence on CTAt. The whole model explained 11.1% of the total variability in CTAt values. For CSAt, BMI was the next important confounding variable, showing a significant positive relation between increased body mass and transformed frequency of chromosome-type aberrations (p = 0.0105). In addition, the use of statins showed a negative relation with borderline significance (p = 0.0763). The whole model explained as much as 29.5% of the total variability in CSAt values. Finally, the whole model for CAt showed similar tendencies as a model for CSAt, but with lower statistical significance and lower percentage (25.8%) of total variability explained.
Interestingly, the stepwise multiple regression procedure excluded the age of the subjects from the model despite the positive correlation found in univariate analysis. As mentioned above, age was also correlated with other variables, particularly with duration of disease. We performed partial regression analysis using the transformed frequency of CSAs and found that the partial correlation between CSAt and duration of disease was still significant after accounting for the influence of age (r = 0.265, p = 0.022), while the partial correlation between CSAt and age became non-significant (r = 0.189, p = 0.1032) after accounting for the influence of duration of disease.

4. Discussion

The main goal of our study was to compare different types of chromosome aberrations in groups of patients with T1DM, T2DM, and control subjects without diabetes.
The total frequency of chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of control subjects in this study (1.83/100 cells) is in good agreement with our historical control data (form 1.68 to 2.11 per 100 cells) [26,27].
Both T1DM and T2DM had a higher number of all types of aberrations than controls. These results align with other studies of T2DM subjects [28,29,30], including smoking and non-smoking T1DM and T2DM subjects [31]. In contrast, other authors did not reveal any difference in CA number between controls and T1DM [32] and untreated, mostly recently diagnosed T2DM [16]. This might suggest that the type and duration of diabetes could impact the CA number. Nevertheless, our study quite clearly indicated that the frequency of both CTAs and CSAs depends on the duration of the disease, not the type of diabetes. Interestingly, the same type of association has been reported in one CA [28] and several MN studies in T2DM patients [33,34,35]. Conversely, other studies failed to find a correlation between the frequency of MN and disease duration in T2DM [36,37]. No correlation between the frequency of MN and duration of T1DM was found [35,38]. It is worth noting that the average diabetes duration in these studies was significantly shorter than ours, with an average disease duration of 13 years for both types. Thus, we might hypothesize that shorter disease duration was insufficient to show a significant correlation.
In our study, T2DM patients had a higher number of CAs and CSAs than T1DM patients. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one study comparing CAs between T1DM and T2DM [31] where the authors showed a higher number of CAs in T2DM than in T1DM, but the significance of the difference was not presented. A higher number of CAs and CSAs in T2DM might be related to a higher prevalence of other comorbidities, such as obesity, arterial hypertension, and dyslipidemia, characteristic of T2DM. There are accumulating data that these comorbidities, especially obesity, are related to chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, consequent DNA damage, and increased cancer risk [39,40,41]. Indeed, we found that BMI is a significant risk factor for chromosome-type aberrations in a multivariate model. The same trend was observed in some studies of obese subjects using an MN assay [42,43,44]. Additionally, impaired DNA repair capacity [45,46] and increased DNA damage [39] in obese subjects were reported in several studies. The correlation between CSAs and BMI of patients with diabetes in our study aligns with these data. Interestingly, one study found a paradoxically lower frequency of MN alongside with a lower relative risk of developing lung cancer in men with a BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared with normal-weight men [47]. However, most of the subjects in this study group are occupationally exposed to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and the authors are trying to explain the reverse association between BMI and both chromosome damage and lung cancer risk by more active metabolism of PAHs in over-weight individuals.
Some authors revealed increased CAs or MN levels in patients with diabetic neuropathy [30,34] or nephropathy [33]. We did not find any association between the frequency of CAs and diabetes complications, but our sample size was small and, consequently, the statistical power of such analysis was quite low. Similarly, we did not find any influence of antidiabetic drugs (insulin and metformin) on the frequency of CAs in patients with diabetes. However, in the multivariate model, we found that lower levels of chromosome damage, mostly of chromosome-type aberrations, might be probably associated with the use of statins. Although this association is statistically non-significant (p = 0.0763), there are some literature data that may support a protective effect of statins against DNA damage and prompt further investigations in this field. For example, long-term therapy with simvastatin lowered levels of DNA damage in the lymphocytes of dyslipidemic T2DM patients, as measured using the Comet assay [48]. A negative correlation between the use of statins and results of both Comet and MN assays was found in univariate analysis; however, this association was no longer seen in the lymphocytes of patients with heart failure after multivariate analysis [49]. Additionally, simvastatin treatment in vitro lowered the frequency of sister-chromatid exchange in the lymphocytes of hemodialyzed patients [50]. In addition, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin [51], and simvastatin [52] were able to reduce the number of somatic mutations in Drosophila melanogaster, induced by doxorubicin, an antineoplastic drug capable of generating reactive oxygen species.
One previous study using FISH technology reported unusually high numbers of stable chromosome aberrations (translocations and inversions) in patients with diabetes [29] and linked their appearance to a higher risk of death. Using conventional Giemsa staining of chromosomes, we were unable to confirm this finding. However, we found a stronger association of chromosome-type aberrations with the duration of diabetes and BMI compared with chromatid-type aberrations. It is well-established that, in peripheral lymphocytes, CSAs are formed in vivo, whereas CTAs occur only in vitro from preexisting DNA lesions [13]. Thus, higher frequencies of CSAs, especially in individuals with more prolonged disease duration, may reflect actual accumulation of chromosomal damage not only in their lymphocytes, but also in other cells. Finding higher frequencies of CSAs in patients with diabetes may link epidemiological studies showing higher cancer risk in these patients [6,8] with our previous studies showing higher cancer risk in subjects with higher rates of chromosome-type aberrations [13,14]. Although this is not a causal link, it is highly probable that both associations might have the same mechanism. Chronic inflammation seems to be an excellent candidate for this mechanism. On the other hand, increased frequencies of CTAs may reflect the accumulation of primary DNA damage in lymphocytes arising due to oxidative stress and impaired excision repair [39,46]. It cannot be excluded that this type of damage may be related to the development of different diabetes complications and comorbidities.
In conclusion, we found that both T1DM and T2DM patients had a higher number of all types of aberrations than controls, which increases with the prolonged disease duration. A higher body mass index was associated with a higher frequency of chromosome-type aberrations. The use of statins might be beneficial for reducing chromosome damage, but further investigations are needed to establish this association.

Author Contributions

L.Š.: Investigation, Formal Analysis, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing. J.K.: Investigation, Validation. D.J.: Investigation. Ž.V.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Writing—Review and Editing. J.R.L.: Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Resources, Visualization, Writing—Original Draft, Writing—Review and Editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Vilnius Regional Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (registry number 2019/6-1146-635).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions set by the Ethics Committee.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank Veronika Dedonytė for the help with cell cultures.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

DM—diabetes mellitus; T1DM—type 1 diabetes mellitus; T2DM—type 2 diabetes mellitus; MN—micronuclei; CA—chromosome aberrations; CTA—chromatid-type aberrations; CSA—chromosome-type aberrations; CTB—chromatid breaks; CTE—chromatid exchanges; CSB—chromosome breaks; CSE—chromosome exchanges; BMI—body mass index.

References

  1. World Health Organization. International Diabetes Federation Definition and Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus and Intermediate Hyperglycaemia: Report of a WHO/IDF Consultation; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. What Is Diabetes? Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/diabetes.html (accessed on 27 June 2023).
  3. IDF Diabetes Atlas 10th Edition. Available online: https://diabetesatlas.org/data/ (accessed on 27 June 2023).
  4. Niedowicz, D.M.; Daleke, D.L. The Role of Oxidative Stress in Diabetic Complications. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2005, 43, 289–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Masenga, S.K.; Kabwe, L.S.; Chakulya, M.; Kirabo, A. Mechanisms of Oxidative Stress in Metabolic Syndrome. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 7898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bonagiri, P.R.; Shubrook, J.H. Review of Associations Between Type 2 Diabetes and Cancer. Clin. Diabetes 2020, 38, 256–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Giovannucci, E.; Harlan, D.M.; Archer, M.C.; Bergenstal, R.M.; Gapstur, S.M.; Habel, L.A.; Pollak, M.; Regensteiner, J.G.; Yee, D. Diabetes and Cancer. Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 1674–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Shahid, R.K.; Ahmed, S.; Le, D.; Yadav, S. Diabetes and Cancer: Risk, Challenges, Management and Outcomes. Cancers 2021, 13, 5735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Sciacca, L.; Vigneri, R.; Tumminia, A.; Frasca, F.; Squatrito, S.; Frittitta, L.; Vigneri, P. Clinical and Molecular Mechanisms Favoring Cancer Initiation and Progression in Diabetic Patients. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2013, 23, 808–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kay, J.; Thadhani, E.; Samson, L.; Engelward, B. Inflammation-Induced DNA Damage, Mutations and Cancer. DNA Repair 2019, 83, 102673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Obe, G.; Pfeiffer, P.; Savage, J.R.K.; Johannes, C.; Goedecke, W.; Jeppesen, P.; Natarajan, A.T.; Martínez-López, W.; Folle, G.A.; Drets, M.E. Chromosomal Aberrations: Formation, Identification and Distribution. Mutat. Res. 2002, 504, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Limoli, C.L.; Giedzinski, E. Induction of Chromosomal Instability by Chronic Oxidative Stress. Neoplasia 2003, 5, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Norppa, H.; Bonassi, S.; Hansteen, I.-L.; Hagmar, L.; Strömberg, U.; Rössner, P.; Boffetta, P.; Lindholm, C.; Gundy, S.; Lazutka, J.; et al. Chromosomal Aberrations and SCEs as Biomarkers of Cancer Risk. Mutat. Res. 2006, 600, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boffetta, P.; van der Hel, O.; Norppa, H.; Fabianova, E.; Fucic, A.; Gundy, S.; Lazutka, J.; Cebulska-Wasilewska, A.; Puskailerova, D.; Znaor, A.; et al. Chromosomal Aberrations and Cancer Risk: Results of a Cohort Study from Central Europe. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007, 165, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Shaw, J.F.; Kansal, P.C.; Gatti, R.A. Letter: Diabetes Mellitus, Chromosomal Aberration, and Malignancy. Lancet 1976, 2, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vormittag, W. Structural Chromosomal Aberration Rates and Sister-Chromatid Exchange Frequencies in Females with Type 2 (Non-Insulin-Dependent) Diabetes. Mutat. Res. 1985, 143, 117–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Deo, P.; Fenech, M.; Dhillon, V.S. Association between Glycation Biomarkers, Hyperglycemia, and Micronucleus Frequency: A Meta -Analysis. Mutat. Res./Rev. Mutat. Res. 2021, 787, 108369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Eremina, N.V.; Zhanataev, A.K.; Lisitsyn, A.A.; Durnev, A.D. Genotoxic markers in patients with diabetes mellitus (Literature review). Ecol. Genet. 2021, 19, 143–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Milic, M.; Frustaci, A.; Del Bufalo, A.; Sánchez-Alarcón, J.; Valencia-Quintana, R.; Russo, P.; Bonassi, S. DNA Damage in Non-Communicable Diseases: A Clinical and Epidemiological Perspective. Mutat. Res. 2015, 776, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Diagnostic Criteria for Diabetes. Available online: https://www.diabetes.org.uk/professionals/position-statements-reports/diagnosis-ongoing-management-monitoring/new_diagnostic_criteria_for_diabetes (accessed on 25 June 2023).
  21. Visseren, F.L.J.; Mach, F.; Smulders, Y.M.; Carballo, D.; Koskinas, K.C.; Bäck, M.; Benetos, A.; Biffi, A.; Boavida, J.-M.; Capodanno, D.; et al. 2021 ESC Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice: Developed by the Task Force for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice with Representatives of the European Society of Cardiology and 12 Medical Societies With the Special Contribution of the European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC). Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 3227–3337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Young, M.J.; Boulton, A.J.M.; Macleod, A.F.; Williams, D.R.R.; Sonksen, P.H. A Multicentre Study of the Prevalence of Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy in the United Kingdom Hospital Clinic Population. Diabetologia 1993, 36, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Spallone, V.; Bellavere, F.; Scionti, L.; Maule, S.; Quadri, R.; Bax, G.; Melga, P.; Viviani, G.L.; Esposito, K.; Morganti, R.; et al. Recommendations for the Use of Cardiovascular Tests in Diagnosing Diabetic Autonomic Neuropathy. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2011, 21, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Whorton, E.B. Some Experimental Design and Analysis Considerations for Cytogenetics Studies. Environ. Mutagen. 1985, 7 (Suppl. 4), 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Statistics Online—Checks Assumptions, Interprets Results. Available online: https://www.statskingdom.com/ (accessed on 19 July 2023).
  26. Lazutka, J.R.; Lekevicius, R.; Dedonyte, V.; Maciuleviciute-Gervers, L.; Mierauskiene, J.; Rudaitiene, S.; Slapsyte, G. Chromosomal Aberrations and Sister-Chromatid Exchanges in Lithuanian Populations: Effects of Occupational and Environmental Exposures. Mutat. Res. 1999, 445, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lazutka, J.R. Chromosome Aberrations and Rogue Cells in Lymphocytes of Chernobyl Clean-up Workers. Mutat. Res. 1996, 350, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Pappuswamy, M.; Rajesh, N.; Philip, A.M. Analysis of Chromosomal Aberrations and Micronuclei in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Biol. 2020, 5, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boehm, B.O.; Möller, P.; Högel, J.; Winkelmann, B.R.; Renner, W.; Rosinger, S.; Seelhorst, U.; Wellnitz, B.; März, W.; Melzner, J.; et al. Lymphocytes of Type 2 Diabetic Women Carry a High Load of Stable Chromosomal Aberrations: A Novel Risk Factor for Disease-Related Early Death. Diabetes 2008, 57, 2950–2957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saraswathy, R.; Anand, S.; Kunnumpurath, S.K.; Kurian, R.J.; Kaye, A.D.; Vadivelu, N. Chromosomal Aberrations and Exon 1 Mutation in the AKR1B1 Gene in Patients with Diabetic Neuropathy. Ochsner J. 2014, 14, 339–342. [Google Scholar]
  31. Anand, S.; Nath, B.; Saraswathy, R. Diabetes—Increased Risk for Cancers through Chromosomal Aberrations? Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2014, 15, 4571–4573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cinkilic, N.; Kiyici, S.; Celikler, S.; Vatan, O.; Oz Gul, O.; Tuncel, E.; Bilaloglu, R. Evaluation of Chromosome Aberrations, Sister Chromatid Exchange and Micronuclei in Patients with Type-1 Diabetes Mellitus. Mutat. Res. 2009, 676, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Salimi, M.; Broumand, B.; Mozdarani, H. Association of Elevated Frequency of Micronuclei in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes of Type 2 Diabetes Patients with Nephropathy Complications. Mutagenesis 2016, 31, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Prasad, M.; Bronson, S.C.; Warrier, T.; Badarinath, A.; Rai, S.; Baid, K.; Sitaraman, S.; George, A.; Moses, A.; Saraswathy, R.; et al. Evaluation of DNA Damage in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients with and without Peripheral Neuropathy: A Study in South Indian Population. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2015, 6, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Quintero Ojeda, J.E.; Aguilar-Medina, M.; Olimón-Andalón, V.; García Jau, R.A.; Ayala Ham, A.; Romero Quintana, J.G.; Silva-Benítez, E.d.L.; Sanchez-Schmitz, G.; Ramos-Payán, R. Increased Micronuclei Frequency in Oral and Lingual Epithelium of Treated Diabetes Mellitus Patients. Biomed. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4898153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Binici, D.N.; Karaman, A.; Coşkun, M.; Oğlu, A.U.; Uçar, F. Genomic Damage in Patients with Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus. Genet. Couns. 2013, 24, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Palazzo, R.P.; Bagatini, P.B.; Schefer, P.B.; de Andrade, F.M.; Maluf, S.W. Genomic Instability in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus on Hemodialysis. Rev. Bras. Hematol. E Hemoter. 2012, 34, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Witczak, M.; Ferenc, T.; Gulczyńska, E.; Nowakowska, D.; Łopaczyńska, D.; Wilczyński, J. Elevated Frequencies of Micronuclei in Pregnant Women with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and in Their Newborns. Mutat. Res./Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2014, 763, 12–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Włodarczyk, M.; Nowicka, G. Obesity, DNA Damage, and Development of Obesity-Related Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Petrie, J.R.; Guzik, T.J.; Touyz, R.M. Diabetes, Hypertension, and Cardiovascular Disease: Clinical Insights and Vascular Mechanisms. Can. J. Cardiol. 2018, 34, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Roberts, C.K.; Sindhu, K.K. Oxidative Stress and Metabolic Syndrome. Life Sci. 2009, 84, 705–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Donmez-Altuntas, H.; Sahin, F.; Bayram, F.; Bitgen, N.; Mert, M.; Guclu, K.; Hamurcu, Z.; Arıbas, S.; Gundogan, K.; Diri, H. Evaluation of Chromosomal Damage, Cytostasis, Cytotoxicity, Oxidative DNA Damage and Their Association with Body-Mass Index in Obese Subjects. Mutat. Res./Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2014, 771, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Karaman, A.; Aydın, H.; Geçkinli, B.; Çetinkaya, A.; Karaman, S. DNA Damage Is Increased in Lymphocytes of Patients with Metabolic Syndrome. Mutat. Res. Genet. Toxicol. Environ. Mutagen. 2015, 782, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Corbi, S.C.T.; Bastos, A.S.; Orrico, S.R.P.; Secolin, R.; Dos Santos, R.A.; Takahashi, C.S.; Scarel-Caminaga, R.M. Elevated Micronucleus Frequency in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes, Dyslipidemia and Periodontitis. Mutagenesis 2014, 29, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Tyson, J.; Caple, F.; Spiers, A.; Burtle, B.; Daly, A.K.; Williams, E.A.; Hesketh, J.E.; Mathers, J.C. Inter-Individual Variation in Nucleotide Excision Repair in Young Adults: Effects of Age, Adiposity, Micronutrient Supplementation and Genotype. Br. J. Nutr. 2009, 101, 1316–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Crespo-Orta, I.; Ortiz, C.; Encarnación, J.; Suárez, E.; Matta, J. Association between DNA Repair Capacity and Body Mass Index in Women. Mutat. Res. 2023, 826, 111813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Li, X.; Bai, Y.; Wang, S.; Nyamathira, S.M.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, W.; Wang, T.; Deng, Q.; He, M.; Zhang, X.; et al. Association of Body Mass Index with Chromosome Damage Levels and Lung Cancer Risk among Males. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Manfredini, V.; Biancini, G.B.; Vanzin, C.S.; Dal Vesco, A.M.R.; Cipriani, F.; Biasi, L.; Treméa, R.; Deon, M.; Peralba, M.d.C.R.; Wajner, M.; et al. Simvastatin Treatment Prevents Oxidative Damage to DNA in Whole Blood Leukocytes of Dyslipidemic Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2010, 28, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tubić Vukajlović, J.; Simić, I.; Smiljanić, Z.; Grujičić, D.; Milošević-Djordjević, O. Genome Instability in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes of Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction. Mutagenesis 2023, 38, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Pernice, F.; Floccari, F.; Caccamo, C.; Belghity, N.; Mantuano, S.; Pacilè, M.E.; Romeo, A.; Nostro, L.; Barillà, A.; Crascì, E.; et al. Chromosomal Damage and Atherosclerosis. A Protective Effect from Simvastatin. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2006, 532, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Orsolin, P.C.; Silva-Oliveira, R.G.; Nepomuceno, J.C. Modulating Effect of Synthetic Statins against Damage Induced by Doxorubicin in Somatic Cells of Drosophila Melanogaster. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 81, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Orsolin, P.C.; Silva-Oliveira, R.G.; Nepomuceno, J.C. Modulating Effect of Simvastatin on the DNA Damage Induced by Doxorubicin in Somatic Cells of Drosophila Melanogaster. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2016, 90, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Representative images showing metaphases with different types of chromosome aberrations: (a) chromosome-type aberration—acentric fragment; (b) chromosome-type aberration—dicentric chromosome with accompanying fragment; (c) chromatid-type aberration—chromatid break; (d) chromatid-type aberration—triradial. All chromosome aberrations are indicated by arrows.
Figure 1. Representative images showing metaphases with different types of chromosome aberrations: (a) chromosome-type aberration—acentric fragment; (b) chromosome-type aberration—dicentric chromosome with accompanying fragment; (c) chromatid-type aberration—chromatid break; (d) chromatid-type aberration—triradial. All chromosome aberrations are indicated by arrows.
Life 13 01926 g001
Figure 2. The frequency of chromatid-type (CTA, panel (a)) and chromosome-type (CSA, panel (b)) aberrations in lymphocytes of subjects without diabetes and patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes. Box plots show the first quartile, median, and third quartile; the end whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. The dashed line shows average value, dashed triangles—standard deviation values. Black dots represent individual values. p values were calculated using Man-Whitney U-test.
Figure 2. The frequency of chromatid-type (CTA, panel (a)) and chromosome-type (CSA, panel (b)) aberrations in lymphocytes of subjects without diabetes and patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes. Box plots show the first quartile, median, and third quartile; the end whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. The dashed line shows average value, dashed triangles—standard deviation values. Black dots represent individual values. p values were calculated using Man-Whitney U-test.
Life 13 01926 g002
Figure 3. The frequency of chromatid-type (CTA, panel (a)) and chromosome-type (CSA, panel (b)) aberrations in lymphocytes of patients with diabetes grouped according to the duration of disease (time after diagnosis). Box plots show the first quartile, median, and third quartile; the end whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. The dashed line shows the average value and dashed triangles—standard deviation values. Black dots represent individual values.
Figure 3. The frequency of chromatid-type (CTA, panel (a)) and chromosome-type (CSA, panel (b)) aberrations in lymphocytes of patients with diabetes grouped according to the duration of disease (time after diagnosis). Box plots show the first quartile, median, and third quartile; the end whiskers mark the 10th and 90th percentiles. The dashed line shows the average value and dashed triangles—standard deviation values. Black dots represent individual values.
Life 13 01926 g003
Figure 4. Correlation between body mass index (BMI) and number of chromosome-type aberrations (CSA) in lymphocytes of patients with diabetes and controls. The dashed line shows a linear regression fit.
Figure 4. Correlation between body mass index (BMI) and number of chromosome-type aberrations (CSA) in lymphocytes of patients with diabetes and controls. The dashed line shows a linear regression fit.
Life 13 01926 g004
Table 1. Demographic and clinical data for the different groups of patients with diabetes and controls.
Table 1. Demographic and clinical data for the different groups of patients with diabetes and controls.
VariableDiabetesControlsp Values
Type 1Type 2 Type 1 vs. Type 2Type 1 vs. ControlsType 2 vs. Controls
N%N%N%
Demographic data
SexFemale
Male
13
20
39.4
60.6
13
9
59.1
40.9
17
4
81.0
19.0
0.1520.0030.119
SmokingNonsmoker
Former/Current smoker
15
18
45.5
54.5
16
6
72.7
27.3
15
6
71.4
28.6
0.0460.0610.924
Age in years, mean (SD) 39.8 (15.4) 61.8 (14.1) 38.1 (13.6) 0.0000.8090.000
BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD) 23.6 (3.7) 35.5 (6.1) 25.9 (4.6) 0.0000.1810.000
Diabetes and complications
Time after diagnosis in years, mean (SD) 13.5 (13.3) 12.9 (7.7) 0.672
Family history of diabetesNo
Yes
19
14
57.6
42.4
5
17
22.7
77.3
15
6
71.4
28.6
0.0110.3040.001
NephropathyNo
Yes
26
7
78.8
21.2
18
4
81.8
18.2
0.783
PolyneuropathyNo
Yes
22
11
66.7
33.3
10
12
45.5
54.5
0.118
Autonomic heart neuropathyNo
Probable
Yes
ND
21
6
4
2
63.6
18.2
12.1
6.1
9
11
1
1
40.9
50.0
4.5
4.5
0.091
Concomitant diseases
Ischemic heart diseaseNo
Yes
31
2
93.9
6.1
14
8
63.6
36.4
21
0
100.0
0.0
0.0040.2500.002
Arterial hypertensionNo
Yes
20
13
60.6
39.4
2
20
9.1
90.9
19
2
90.5
9.5
0.0000.0170.000
DyslipidemiaNo
Yes
16
17
48.5
51.5
3
19
13.6
86.4
19
2
90.5
9.5
0.0080.0020.000
Thyroid diseases (excl. cancer)No
Yes
24
9
72.7
27.3
13
9
59.1
40.9
16
5
76.2
23.8
0.2910.7770.232
Use of prescribed medications
InsulinNo
Yes
7
26
21.2
78.8
7
15
31.8
68.2
0.376
MetforminNo
Yes
4
18
18.2
81.8
StatinsNo
Yes
23
10
69.7
30.3
12
10
54.5
45.5
19
2
90.5
9.5
0.2520.0730.009
Antihypertensive drugsNo
Yes
20
13
60.6
39.4
2
20
9.1
90.9
19
2
90.5
9.5
0.0000.0170.000
Table 2. Frequency of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells in different groups of patients with diabetes and controls.
Table 2. Frequency of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells in different groups of patients with diabetes and controls.
GroupsAberrations per 100 Cells *
CTBCTECSBCSETotal CA
MeanSDMin–MaxMeanSDMin–MaxMeanSDMin–MaxMeanSDMin–MaxMeanSDMin–Max
Non-diabetic1.480.680.50–3.000.070.180.00–0.500.210.290.00–1.000.100.220.00–0.671.830.900.50–4.00
T1DM2.381.260.00–5.330.080.180.00–0.500.390.530.00–2.000.370.510.00–2.003.131.471.00–6.00
T2DM2.260.930.50–4.000.060.160.00–0.500.800.530.00–2.000.470.650.00–2.503.601.471.00–7.50
p-value **0.00590.89810.00020.05030.0002
* CTB—chromatid breaks; CTE—chromatid exchanges; CSB—chromosome breaks; CSE—chromosome exchanges; total CA—total number of aberrations.** Kruskal–Wallis test.
Table 3. Distribution of chromosome aberrations in the studied groups of individuals according to their categorical demographic and clinical variables.
Table 3. Distribution of chromosome aberrations in the studied groups of individuals according to their categorical demographic and clinical variables.
Variables *DiabetesControls
Type 1Type 2
CTA (SD)CSA (SD)CA (SD)CTA (SD)CSA (SD)CA (SD)CTA (SD)CSA (SD)CA (SD)
SexFemale
Male
2.32 (1.28)
2.53 (1.34)
0.97 (0.98)
0.63 (0.65)
3.21 (1.54)
3.08 (1.45)
2.41 (1.05)
2.20 (0.95)
1.13 (0.77)
1.48 (1.20)
3.54 (1.65)
3.68 (1.27)
1.56 (0.75)
1.50 (0.58)
0.24 (0.36)
0.63 (0.63)
1.76 (0.87)
2.13 (1.11)
SmokingNS
CS/FS
2.45 (1.12)
2.45 (1.47)
0.84 (0.88)
0.70 (0.75)
3.28 (1.68)
3.01 (1.30)
2.35 (0.96)
2.25 (1.17)
1.13 (0.69)
1.67 (1.47)
3.48 (1.47)
3.92 (1.56)
1.73 (0.62)
1.08 (0.74)
0.37 (0.48)
0.17 (0.26)
2.07 (0.84)
1.25 (0.82)
Thyroid diseases No
Yes
2.49 (1.42)
2.36 (0.99)
0.76 (0.83)
0.80 (0.75)
3.13 (1.55)
3.13 (1.29)
2.39 (1.17)
2.22 (0.71)
1.50 (1.08)
0.94 (0.68)
3.89 (1.58)
3.17 (1.27)
1.50 (0.55)
1.70 (1.15)
0.25 (0.41)
0.50 (0.50)
1.72 (0.82)
2.20 (1.15)
Family history of DMNo
Yes
2.37 (1.23)
2.56 (1.43)
0.95 (0.98)
0.52 (0.35)
3.21 (1.54)
3.02 (1.41)
2.32 (1.43)
2.32 (0.88)
1.40 (0.81)
1.24 (1.02)
3.73 (1.98)
3.56 (1.37)
1.70 (0.68)
1.17 (0.68)
0.27 (0.46)
0.42 (0.38)
1.97 (0.90)
1.50 (0.89)
AHNo
Yes
2.61 (1.59)
2.21 (0.65)
0.78 (0.86)
0.74 (0.72)
3.26 (1.68)
2.94 (1.09)
2.50 (0.71)
2.31 (1.03)
1.00 (0.71)
1.30 (0.99)
3.50 (1.41)
3.61 (1.52)
1.55 (0.66)
1.50 (1.41)
0.32 (0.45)
0.25 (0.35)
1.84 (0.91)
1.75 (1.06)
DyslipidemiaNo
Yes
2.79 (1.60)
2.13 (0.87)
0.82 (0.96)
0.72 (0.64)
3.45 (1.73)
2.83 (1.14)
1.93 (0.12)
2.39 (1.01)
1.11 (0.54)
1.30 (1.02)
3.04 (0.51)
3.68 (1.57)
1.55 (0.66)
1.50 (1.41)
0.32 (0.45)
0.25 (0.35)
1.84 (0.91)
1.75 (1.06)
IHDNo
Yes
2.48 (1.33)
2.00 (0.71)
0.74 (0.79)
1.25 (1.06)
3.14 (1.46)
3.00 (2.12)
2.27 (0.92)
2.42 (1.17)
0.99 (0.61)
1.77 (1.27)
3.26 (1.29)
4.19 (1.67)
N.A.N.A.N.A.
NephropathyNo
Yes
2.51 (1.42)
2.21 (0.76)
0.83 (0.87)
0.52 (0.41)
3.24 (1.56)
2.74 (1.03)
2.41 (1.03)
1.95 (0.82)
1.12 (0.70)
1.96 (1.70)
3.53 (1.56)
3.91 (1.15)
N.A.N.A.N.A.
PNPNo
Yes
2.64 (1.52)
2.06 (0.56)
0.80 (0.84)
0.70 (0.75)
3.33 (1.62)
2.74 (1.06)
2.56 (1.11)
2.13 (0.88)
1.30 (0.62)
1.25 (1.20)
3.86 (1.50)
3.38 (1.48)
N.A.N.A.N.A.
CANNo
Yes
MD
2.54 (1.47)
2.35 (1.06)
2.00 (0.71)
0.87 (0.91)
0.47 (0.38)
1.25 (1.06)
3.30 (1.57)
2.82 (1.20)
3.00 (2.12)
2.06 (0.98)
2.64 (0.92)
1.00
1.39 (1.27)
1.25 (0.72)
0.50
3.44 (1.33)
3.89 (1.53)
1.50
N.A.N.A.N.A.
InsulinNo
Yes
2.52 (1.89)
2.43 (1.14)
0.38 (0.39)
0.87 (0.85)
2.74 (1.70)
3.24 (1.41)
2.50 (1.08)
2.24 (0.98)
1.29 (0.57)
1.27 (1.11)
3.79 (1.32)
3.51 (1.58)
N.A.N.A.N.A.
MetforminNo
Yes
N.A.N.A.N.A.2.13 (1.18)
2.37 (0.98)
1.38 (0.25)
1.25 (1.06)
3.50 (1.08)
3.62 (1.57)
N.A.N.A.N.A.
StatinsNo
Yes
2.66 (1.44)
1.97 (0.76)
0.88 (0.85)
0.52 (0.63)
3.40 (1.53)
2.52 (1.16)
2.47 (1.15)
2.15 (0.78)
1.21 (0.65)
1.35 (1.27)
3.68 (1.60)
3.50 (1.39)
1.55 (0.66)
1.50 (1.41)
0.32 (0.45)
0.25 (0.35)
1.84 (0.91)
1.75 (1.06)
Antihypertensive drugsNo
Yes
2.56 (1.59)
2.28 (0.69)
0.83 (0.88)
0.67 (0.69)
3.26 (1.68)
2.94 (1.09)
2.50 (0.71)
2.31 (1.03)
1.00 (0.71)
1.30 (0.99)
3.50 (1.41)
3.61 (1.52)
1.55 (0.66)
1.50 (1.41)
0.32 (0.45)
0.25 (0.35)
1.84 (0.91)
1.75 (1.06)
* CAN—cardiac autonomic neuropathy; IHD—ischemic heart disease; PNP—peripheral neuropathy; AH—arterial hypertension; NS—nonsmoker; CS/FS –current/former smoker; N.A.—not applicable.
Table 4. Results of multiple regression of transformed frequency of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells on the most significant variables—duration of disease, body mass index (BMI), and use of statins.
Table 4. Results of multiple regression of transformed frequency of chromosome aberrations per 100 cells on the most significant variables—duration of disease, body mass index (BMI), and use of statins.
VariablesChromatid-Type Aberrations (CTA)Chromosome-Type Aberrations (CSA)Total Aberrations (CA)
Regression CoefficientStandard ErrorpRegression CoefficientStandard ErrorpRegression CoefficientStandard Errorp
Intercept1.73720.56140.0028−1.88570.59630.00230.71050.57620.2216
BMI−0.08820.17230.61040.48100.18310.01050.26080.17690.1448
Duration of disease0.16540.05600.00420.263480.05950.000030.26090.05750.00002
Use of statins−0.19470.13720.1604−0.262180.1457820.0763−0.24210.14090.0899
Model properties
Model *CTAt = 1.737191 − 0.0882006 Ln(BMI) + 0.165427 Ln(Duration of disease) − 0.19466 Ln(Use of statins)CSAt = 0.15173 × (BMI)0.480953 × (Duration of disease)0.26338 × (Use of statins)−0.26218CAt = 0.710502 + 0.260791 Ln(BMI) + 0.260852 Ln(Duration of disease) − 0.24212 Ln(Use of statins)
R-square0.11060.29500.2576
Coefficient of multiple correlation0.33260.54320.5076
Goodness of fitF(3,72) = 2.9855, p = 0.0367F(3,72) = 10.0445, p = 0.00001F(3,72) = 8.3290, p = 0.00008
Residual normality (Shapiro–Wilk test)p = 0.4076p = 0.1005p = 0.6373
* BMI is a continuous variable expressed as kg/m2; duration of the disease is an indicator variable, where 1 = no diabetes, 2 = new diagnosis, 3 = duration <5 years, 4 = duration >5–10 years, 5 = duration >10–15 years, 6 = durations >15-20 years, 7 = duration >20–25 years, 8 = duration >25 years; use of statins is an indicator variable where 1 = non-users and 2 = users; CTAt, CSAt, and CAt are transformed (Y = 0.5[(X)0.5 + (X + 1)0.5]) frequency per 100 cells of chromatid-type, chromosome-type, and total number of aberrations, respectively.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Šiaulienė, L.; Kazlauskaitė, J.; Jurkėnaitė, D.; Visockienė, Ž.; Lazutka, J.R. Influence of Body Mass Index and Duration of Disease on Chromosome Damage in Lymphocytes of Patients with Diabetes. Life 2023, 13, 1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13091926

AMA Style

Šiaulienė L, Kazlauskaitė J, Jurkėnaitė D, Visockienė Ž, Lazutka JR. Influence of Body Mass Index and Duration of Disease on Chromosome Damage in Lymphocytes of Patients with Diabetes. Life. 2023; 13(9):1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13091926

Chicago/Turabian Style

Šiaulienė, Laura, Jūratė Kazlauskaitė, Dalia Jurkėnaitė, Žydrūnė Visockienė, and Juozas R. Lazutka. 2023. "Influence of Body Mass Index and Duration of Disease on Chromosome Damage in Lymphocytes of Patients with Diabetes" Life 13, no. 9: 1926. https://doi.org/10.3390/life13091926

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop