Data_Sheet_1_Association of intrinsic capacity with functional ability, sarcopenia and systemic inflammation in pre-frail older adults.docx

BackgroundDecline in intrinsic capacity (IC) has been shown to accelerate progression to disability. The study aims to explore association of IC composite score with functional ability, sarcopenia and systemic inflammation in pre-frail older adults.MethodsCross-sectional study of pre-frail older adults ≥60 years old recruited from the community and primary care centers. Composite scores of four domains of IC were measured: locomotion, vitality, cognition and psychological. FRAIL scale was used to define pre-frailty. Muscle mass was measured using the bioelectrical impedance analysis. Systemic inflammation biomarkers [Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-10 (IL-10), Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha (TNF-α), and Growth differentiated factor 15 (GDF-15)] were measured. Participants in the lowest tertile (T1) exhibited greater decline in IC.ResultsA total of 398 pre-frail older adults were recruited, mean age was 72.7 ± 5.8 years, 60.1% female, education level 7.8 years, and 85.2% were of Chinese ethnicity. A total of 75.1% had decline in locomotion, 40.5% in vitality, 53.2% in cognition and 41.7% in psychological domain. A total of 95% had decline in at least one domain. T1 was significantly associated with ADL impairment (aOR 3.36, 95% CI 1.78–6.32), IADL impairment (aOR 2.37, 95% CI 1.36–4.13), poor perceived health (aOR 0.96, 95% CI 0.95–0.98), fall (aOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05–2.84), cognitive impairment (aOR 8.21, 95% CI 4.69–14.39), depression (aOR 101.82, 95% CI 33.62–308.37), and sarcopenia (aOR 2.40, 95% CI 1.60–5.45). T1 had significant associations with GDF-15, IL-10, and IL-10 to TNF-α ratio.ConclusionDecline in IC composite score among pre-frail older adults was associated with functional limitation, sarcopenia, and systemic inflammation.</p

CARES risk model dataset

Retrospective cohort of 90785 patients who underwent surgery in Singapore General Hospital between 2012-201

Differences in <i>AMY1</i> Gene Copy Numbers Derived from Blood, Buccal Cells and Saliva Using Quantitative and Droplet Digital PCR Methods: Flagging the Pitfall

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>The human salivary (<i>AMY1</i>) gene, encoding salivary α-amylase, has variable copy number variants (CNVs) in the human genome. We aimed to determine if real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and the more recently available Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) can provide a precise quantification of the <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number in blood, buccal cells and saliva samples derived from the same individual.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Seven participants were recruited and DNA was extracted from the blood, buccal cells and saliva samples provided by each participant. Taqman assay real-time qPCR and ddPCR were conducted to quantify <i>AMY1</i> gene copy numbers. Statistical analysis was carried out to determine the difference in AMY1 gene copy number between the different biological specimens and different assay methods.</p><p>Results</p><p>We found significant within-individual difference (p<0.01) in <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number between different biological samples as determined by qPCR. However, there was no significant within-individual difference in <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number between different biological samples as determined by ddPCR. We also found that <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number of blood samples were comparable between qPCR and ddPCR, while there is a significant difference (p<0.01) between <i>AMY1</i> gene copy numbers measured by qPCR and ddPCR for both buccal swab and saliva samples.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Despite buccal cells and saliva samples being possible sources of DNA, it is pertinent that ddPCR or a single biological sample, preferably blood sample, be used for determining highly polymorphic gene copy numbers like <i>AMY1</i>, due to the large within-individual variability between different biological samples if real time qPCR is employed.</p></div

Women defined as sarcopenic by AWGS (n = 216), FNIH (n = 93), and both criteria (n = 50).

Women defined as sarcopenic by AWGS (n = 216), FNIH (n = 93), and both criteria (n = 50).</p

Comparison of <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number determined by qPCR and ddPCR in different biological samples.

<p>1–7 represents each of the 7 subjects recruited for this study, 8 represents the positive control known to have 14 diploid copy number of <i>AMY1</i> gene. The bars represent the 2 different methods used to determine <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number in the samples (qPCR and ddPCR). A: Comparison of <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number in blood. B: Comparison of <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number in buccal swab. C: Comparison of <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number in saliva. * denotes significant difference of p<0.01 between qPCR and ddPCR for each type of biological sample after paired Student’s t test analysis.</p

Participant characteristics (n = 1201).

Participant characteristics (n = 1201).</p

Determination of <i>AMY1</i> gene copy number by qPCR.

<p>1–7 represents each of the 7 subjects recruited for this study, 8 represents the positive control known to have 14 diploid copies of <i>AMY1</i> gene. The bars represent the different DNA samples extracted from blood, buccal swab and saliva of each individual. * denotes significant difference of p<0.01 (after bonferroni adjustment) between the different biological samples in each subject using ANOVA analysis.</p

Comparison of DNA yield and quality according to DNA collection method.

<p>Comparison of DNA yield and quality according to DNA collection method.</p

Assay parameters for individual variables (n = 1201).

(PDF)</p

Associations between health conditions and sarcopenia (n = 1201).

Associations between health conditions and sarcopenia (n = 1201).</p