Searchable abstracts of presentations at key conferences in endocrinology
Endocrine Abstracts (2020) 70 EP190 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.70.EP190

ECE2020 ePoster Presentations Diabetes, Obesity, Metabolism and Nutrition (142 abstracts)

Matrix–GLA–protein and cardiovascular parameters: uc–dp MGP vs total MGP

Natascha Schweighofer1, 2, Moritz Strasser3, Christoph Haudum1, 2, Albrecht Schmidt4, Ewald Kolesnik4, Burkert Pieske4, Thomas Pieber1, 2 & Barbara Obermayer–Pietsch2


1CBmed GmbH, Center for Biomarker Research in Medicine, Graz, Austria; 2 Division of Endocrinology and Diabetology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz; 3Institute of Biomedical Science, Department of Health Studies, FH JOANNEUM, University of Applied Sciences; 4Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz


Matrix–GLA–protein ( MGP), independent of its posttranslational modification(s), has been associated with bone parameters and cardiovascular risk in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We investigated whether uncarboxylated, dephosphorylated MGP (uc–dp MGP), total MGP or both are associated with anthropometric and cardiovascular parameters such as carotid to femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), intima–media thickness (IMT) and relative wall thickness (RWT), in patients with and without T2DM. We analysed data from the BioPersMed cohort (n = 966, mean age 58 ± 9 years, 255 patients without and 71 with T2DM), a prospective cohort of asymptomatic patients at cardiovascular risk. T2DM and non–T2DM patients were defined according to ADA criteria. Uc–dp MGP was measured using the IDS–iSYS InaKtif MGP Kit and total MGP using Human MGP(Matrix Gla protein) ELISA Kit (Wuhan Fine Biotech Co., Ltd., China). Pulse wave analysis was done with a SphygmoCor device (Atcor Medical, Australia), IMT and echocardiograpy with the Vivid 9 device (GE Healthcare Austria GmbH & Co OG, Austria). Total and uc–dp MGP did not correlate with each other in both subject groups. Uc–dp MGP was associated with BMI (P < 0.001), weight (P = 0.003), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.021 and 0.004, respectively), heart frequency (P = 0.011) and waist and hip circumferences (both P = 0.001) in patients without T2DM and with BMI (P = 0.016), weight (P = 0.021) and waist and hip circumferences (P = 0.025 and 0.046) in T2DM patients. Total MGP showed no correlations with these parameters in both patient groups. Only uc–dp MGP correlated with PWV, IMT in +patients without T2DM (P = 0.004 and P = 0.001, respectively). Those patients with end organ damage had elevated uc–dp MGP levels compared to patients with non–pathologic IMT (P = 0.021). Only uc–dp MGP showed associations with RWT groups (P = 0.039) in non–diabetic patients. Patients with eccentric cardiac hypertrophy had higher uc–dp MGP levels than patients with concentric hypertrophy. Uc–dp MGP but not total MGP was associated with cardiovascular parameters in non–diabetic patients and seems to be elevated in pathologic conditions. These findings were not seen in patients with T2DM. Our data implicate that uc–dp MGP is also an active form of MGP and not only an inactive storage form and might be a very interesting player modulating cardiovascular risk.

Volume 70

22nd European Congress of Endocrinology

Online
05 Sep 2020 - 09 Sep 2020

European Society of Endocrinology 

Browse other volumes

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.