Next Article in Journal
Asparagine and Glutamine Deprivation Alters Ionizing Radiation Response, Migration and Adhesion of a p53null Colorectal Cancer Cell Line
Next Article in Special Issue
Histone Deacetylases: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications for Muscular Dystrophies
Previous Article in Journal
Emerging RUNX2-Mediated Gene Regulatory Mechanisms Consisting of Multi-Layered Regulatory Networks in Skeletal Development
Previous Article in Special Issue
P2 Receptor Signaling in Motor Units in Muscular Dystrophy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 3
10.3390/ijms24032981
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Serum Myostatin among Excessive Drinkers

by
Candelaria Martín-González
1,
Onán Pérez-Hernández
1,
Alen García-Rodríguez
1,
Pedro Abreu-González
2,
Paula Ortega-Toledo
1,
Camino María Fernández-Rodríguez
1,
Julio César Alvisa-Negrín
1,
Antonio Martínez-Riera
1 and
Emilio González-Reimers
1,*
1
Departamento de Medicina Interna, Universidad de La Laguna, Servicio de Medicina Interna, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Canary Islands, 38320 La Laguna, Spain
2
Departamento de Ciencias Médicas Básicas, Unidad de Fisiología, Universidad de la Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Islands, 38320 La Laguna, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(3), 2981; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032981
Submission received: 27 November 2022 / Revised: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 3 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Advances of Muscular Dystrophy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Myostatin acts as a negative regulator of muscle growth. Its effect on fat mass is subject to debate. Among alcoholics, there is a high prevalence of muscle atrophy, and increased fat deposition has been also described in these patients. Myostatin could be involved in these alterations, but its relationships with body composition have been scarcely studied in alcoholic patients. To analyze the behavior of myostatin among alcoholics and its relationship with alcohol intake, liver function, and body composition. We investigated serum myostatin in 59 male patients and 18 controls. Patients were all heavy drinkers admitted with organic complications related to excessive ethanol ingestion. Densitometry analysis was used to assess body composition in 46 patients. Handgrip was assessed in 51 patients. Patients showed lower myostatin values than controls (Z = 3.80; p < 0.001). There was a significant relationship between myostatin and fat at the right leg (ρ = 0.32; p = 0.028), left leg (ρ = 0.32; p = 0.028), trunk (ρ = 0.31, p = 0.038), total fat proport ion (ρ = 0.33, p = 0.026), and gynecoid fat distribution (ρ = 0.40, p = 0.006) but not with lean mass (total lean ρ = 0.07; p = 0.63; trunk lean ρ = 0.03; p = 0.85; lower limbs ρ = 0.08; p = 0.58; upper limbs ρ = 0.04 p = 0.82; android ρ = 0.02; p = 0.88, or gynoid lean mass ρ = 0.20; p = 0.19). In total, 80.43% of patients showed at least one criterion of osteosarcopenic adiposity (OSA). Myostatin was related to OSA obesity. We also observed higher myostatin values among patients with body mass index > 30 kg/m2. Serum myostatin was lower among excessive drinkers, and it was related to increased fat deposition among these patients but not to lean mass, handgrip, or bone mineral density.

1. Introduction

The terms osteosarcopenic obesity or osteosarcopenic adiposity (OSA) [1] have been coined to define a clinical condition characterized by the progressive loss of muscle mass and function, accompanied by osteoporosis and increased fat deposition. This association is not only an epidemiological one as there is also a complex hormonal and cytokine network involved in the pathogenesis of this syndrome [2]. OSA constitutes a major health problem because its prevalence is very high, especially among the elderly, and each of its three components (sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and altered fat distribution) is associated with frailty and a poor prognosis [3,4].
Age is a major factor involved in the development of OSA, especially osteoporosis and sarcopenia. Some studies reveal that loss of muscle mass begins in the fifth decade at a rate of 0.8% per year [5]. As a consequence, 80-year-old adults have lost approximately 30% of their muscle mass [6]. Some toxic compounds, such as ethanol, are associated with muscle atrophy, so that chronic excessive drinkers may develop a similar degree of sarcopenia at a younger age than that suffered by old nonalcoholic individuals [7]. Indeed, the so-called chronic alcoholic myopathy, characterized by muscle atrophy and weakness, is very frequent among alcoholics, affecting nearly 40–60% of middle-aged heavy drinkers [8], and muscle mass may be reduced by up to 30%. A high proportion of these patients also show osteoporosis and altered body fat distribution [9], although controversy exists regarding the prevalence of obesity among excessive drinkers [10]
Among alcoholics, muscle atrophy may be due to the combined effects of proinflammatory cytokines, peroxidative damage, ethanol-induced increased myostatin expression, and an altered hormonal profile (testosterone, IGF-1, vitamin D, and corticosteroids) [11,12]. Sarcopenia is more marked among alcoholics with cirrhosis [13] because, in this disease, several metabolic changes add to the already commented effects of ethanol on muscle. Liver failure leads to reduced glycogen storage and increased proteolysis. Portal hypertension increases intestinal bacterial translocation and, therefore, leads to the increased secretion of proinflammatory cytokines and oxidative damage. Reduced synthesis of IGF-1 due to liver failure and peripheral conversion of testosterone into estrogens (related to portal hypertension) aggravate muscle atrophy, and hyperammonemia, derived from reduced liver ureagenesis, also strongly contributes to sarcopenia [13] by several mechanisms, including increased myostatin expression [14].
Myostatin is a member of the transforming growth factor β superfamily that is mainly (but not solely) expressed in skeletal muscle acting as a negative regulator of muscle growth but also exerting a negative regulatory role on bone [15]. The role of myostatin on osteosarcopenia in alcoholic patients and/or patients with liver cirrhosis of different causes has been extensively studied, but there is discrepancy in the reported results. For instance, Sato et al. failed to find any relation between myostatin and the skeletal muscle mass index (SMI; assessed by computed tomography) among alcoholics with cirrhosis (in contrast to the negative, significant relationship observed in nonalcoholic patients) [16]. In another study, myostatin levels were lower in cirrhotic patients with sarcopenia [17] and showed a direct (positive) correlation with SMI. Nishikawa et al. [18] did find a positive correlation between ammonia and myostatin and a negative one between psoas muscle index and myostatin in accordance with the pathophysiological mechanisms attributed to ammonia [13]. Therefore, although the physiological effect of myostatin inhibiting muscle growth is undisputed, clinical observations show disparate results in patients with sarcopenia related to liver disease.
In contrast to the well-established inhibitory function of myostatin on muscle growth and differentiation, the effect of this hormone on fat development is controversial [19,20]. There are observations that support that myostatin inhibits adipogenesis in preadipocytes but promotes the transformation of pluripotent stem cells into adipogenesis-committed lineages [20]. Some myostatin gene polymorphisms may be associated with obesity [21], and higher myostatin levels than controls have been reported in obese patients [22]. In obese patients, myostatin was related to insulin resistance, proinflammatory cytokines, and the presence of three or more criteria of the metabolic syndrome [23]. Therefore, myostatin is likely involved in sarcopenic obesity [24,25,26], but its role in alcoholic patients with OSA is a matter open to debate, especially considering the discrepancy that exists in relation to the true prevalence of adiposity among excessive drinkers.
Based on these facts, the aim of the present study is to analyze the role of myostatin among alcoholics and its relationship with alcohol intake, liver function, and body composition.

2. Results

Patients showed lower myostatin values (978.48 ± 805.84 pg/mL) than controls (1440.89 ± 479.62 pg/mL, Z = 3.80; p < 0.001, Figure 1), although patients with cirrhosis showed a nonsignificant trend to higher values (996.10 ± 810.13 pg/mL) than patients without cirrhosis (963.61 ± 814.86 pg/mL; Z = 0.24; p > 0.20; NS). Some biological differences among patients with and without cirrhosis and among patients and controls are shown in Table 1.

2.1. Ethanol Ingestion

Patients had been heavy drinkers (median = 160; interquartile range (IQR) = 96–240 g ethanol/day) during many years (median = 34; IQR = 20–43 years). Among patients, myostatin was not related to the daily ethanol ingestion (ρ = 0.05; p = 0.70) or the duration of the drinking habit (ρ = 0.02, p = 0.67) and was also not related to age (ρ = 0.07; p = 0.60). We failed to find any relationship between serum GGT and myostatin (ρ = −0.19; p = 0.14) or MCV and myostatin (ρ = −0.22; p = 0.09).

2.2. Liver Function

No relationships were observed when myostatin levels were compared with prothrombin (ρ = 0.05; p = 0.70), bilirubin (ρ = 0.03; p = 0.81), or albumin (ρ = 0.01; p = 0.96). Although Child’s B and C patients showed a trend to higher myostatin levels, these were not significantly different of those observed among Child’s A patients (KW = 2.83; p = 0.24). Only six patients with cirrhosis developed encephalopathy, and 10 patients showed ascites, but no differences were observed when myostatin was compared among patients with or without these features (Z = 0.68; p = 0.50 and Z = 1.78, p = 0.08, respectively).

2.3. Body Composition

We found significant relationships between myostatin and the proportion of total fat (ρ = 0.33, p = 0.026, Figure 2) and gynoid fat distribution (ρ = 0.40, p = 0.006). We also found significant relationships between myostatin and the absolute amount of fat at the right leg (ρ = 0.32; p = 0.029), left leg (ρ = 0.32; p = 0.028), and trunk (ρ = 0.31; p = 0.038). In all these cases, the relationships between myostatin and fat variables were independent of age or the presence or not of cirrhosis, as assessed by stepwise multiple regression analyses (Table 2).
Myostatin was related to fat at lower limbs (ρ = 0.34; p = 0.023) but not at upper limbs (ρ = 0.27; p = 0.07). Additionally, a significant relationship was observed between myostatin and the total fat/total lean index (ρ = 0.29; p = 0.049).
On the other hand, no relationships were observed between myostatin and variables related to lean mass (total lean ρ = 0.072; p = 0.63 (Figure 3); trunk lean ρ = 0.03; p = 0.85; lower limbs ρ = 0.08; p = 0.58; upper limbs ρ = 0.04 p = 0.82; android ρ = 0.02; p = 0.88, or gynoid lean mass ρ = 0.20; p = 0.19).
There was no relationship between myostatin and handgrip (ρ = 0.13; p = 0.42), but there was a strong inverse correlation between age and handgrip (ρ = −0.51; p < 0.001) and a direct one between handgrip and BMI (ρ = 0.30; p = 0.04).
A significant relationship was observed between myostatin and BMI (ρ = 0.38, p = 0.014; Figure 4) that was even stronger when only patients without ascites (n = 38) were considered (ρ = 0.42; p = 0.010).
Serum myostatin levels were significantly higher among patients classified as obese according to BMI (>30 kg/m2; Z = 2.86; p = 0.004, Figure 5).
A stepwise logistic regression analysis comparing obesity with myostatin, age (both as dichotomic variables according to medians), and cirrhosis showed that myostatin was the only variable independently related to obesity, and the same happened when a multiple correlation analysis was performed between BMI as the dependent variable and myostatin, age, and the presence of cirrhosis (Table 3).
No relationships at all were observed when myostatin was compared with bone variables (for instance, femoral neck T-score (ρ = 0.07; p = 0.64), total hip T-score (ρ = 0.16; p = 0.30) lumbar spine T-score (ρ = 0.10; p = 0.52), total bone mineral content (ρ = 0.24; p = 0.12), or bone mineral density (ρ = 0.26; p = 0.08)).
Regarding the OSA criteria, forty-two patients (77.78%) fulfilled the criterion of sarcopenia according to handgrip strength and 56.76% showed reduced lean appendicular muscle mass. Thirty-four (70.83%) patients were classified as obese according to the proportion of total fat; 22 (45.83%) had osteopenia and only 5 (10.41%) had osteoporosis. Twenty-four patients showed an android to gynoid fat ratio < 1. As expected, age was related to OSA obesity (T = 2.85; p = 0.007), OSA handgrip (T = 3.36; p = 0.002), and OSA lean mass (T = 2.38; p = 0.023). Age was significantly higher among those with at least one OSA criterion (T = 3.44; p < 0.001), and among those with three or more OSA criteria (T = 3.65; p < 0.001). No relationships were observed among the presence of cirrhosis and OSA criteria.
Serum myostatin was significantly higher among patients with at least one OSA criterion (80.43%) than among the remaining patients (Z = 2.31; p = 0.021, Figure 6), but we failed to find differences in myostatin among patients with three or more OSA criteria and the remaining ones (Z = 1.28; NS).
Analyzing separately the relationships between myostatin and OSA criteria, the only significant association was detected between serum myostatin and obesity (proportion of total fat > 25%): the proportion of fat was significantly lower among patients with myostatin levels below the median (Z = 2.15; p = 0.037), but myostatin was not related to any other criterion of OSA (Table 4).
However, when performing a logistic regression analysis comparing OSA fat with age, myostatin (both as dichotomic variables according to median values) and cirrhosis, myostatin was displaced by age, which remained as the sole variable related to OSA fat.
Among patients with obesity according to the OSA criteria, no differences were observed in myostatin values between patients with hypertension or diabetes when compared with patients without hypertension (T = 0.94; p = 0.36) or diabetes (T = 0.23; p = 0.82), and no significant relationships were observed between myostatin and cholesterol (ρ = 0.07, p = 0.70), triglycerides (ρ = 0.12, p = 0.53) or the index HDL/LDL cholesterol (ρ = 0.14; p = 0.45). We also failed to find any statistical relationship between myostatin and these variables when all the patients were included.

3. Discussion

This study was performed to evaluate the role of serum myostatin among alcoholic patients, especially analyzing the relationship between myostatin and body composition.
Myostatin serum levels of the patients included in this study were lower than those reported in previous studies. Muscle is the main organ involved in myostatin synthesis [27]. Therefore, the finding of lower myostatin levels in alcoholic patients might be related to the fact that appendicular skeletal muscle mass was markedly reduced in nearly 57% of the patients (following OSA criteria), a prevalence in accordance with the well described chronic myopathy of heavy drinkers.
As previously commented, many factors other than myostatin may contribute to sarcopenia in alcoholics. Reduced muscle mass leads to an absolute reduction of muscle myostatin secretion, partially explaining the lower values of myostatin observed among patients and the nonsignificant trend to a direct relationship (higher myostatin among patients with more strength) observed between myostatin and handgrip strength (Table 4). This is in apparent opposition with the function of myostatin as a negative regulator of muscle mass [28]. A direct relationship between myostatin and muscle mass has also been reported by other authors, as recently reviewed [26].
Heavy alcohol consumption is associated with the increased secretion of proinflammatory cytokines that may promote muscle atrophy [29] and may modulate myostatin effects; both stimulatory [30] and inhibitory [31] actions having been reported. The secretion of proinflammatory cytokines is increased in patients with cirrhosis. In addition, hyperammonemia (a factor able to increase myostatin secretion [14]) is related to liver dysfunction. Therefore, it is not surprising that myostatin levels in alcoholics with cirrhosis may differ from those observed in alcoholics without cirrhosis. Tsien et al. reported increased myostatin expression in patients with cirrhosis [32], in accordance with data previously obtained by García et al., who found a fourfold increase in serum myostatin in 36 patients with cirrhosis compared with 6 controls [33] and also with the results of an experimental study in which myostatin seemed to activate several pathways involved in liver fibrous tissue deposition [34]. In a larger study, including a total of 198 patients with cirrhosis (125 nonalcoholic), Nishikawa et al. [18] reported higher myostatin values among Child B or C patients. These authors also found that higher myostatin levels were associated with higher mortality. Myostatin was related in that study with muscle mass loss and hyperammonemia. By contrast, we found that myostatin levels were lower among patients, despite the severe liver failure observed in some of the included patients with cirrhosis, six of whom developed chronic encephalopathy. However, a slight, nonsignificant trend to higher values of myostatin was observed in patients with cirrhosis compared with patients without cirrhosis, but no relationship was detected between myostatin and liver function impairment.
In contrast, we observed a clear-cut relationship among myostatin and fat mass. The direct relationship of myostatin and fat mass (that was independent of age or cirrhosis) was observed when myostatin was compared with crude data of fat mass at the right leg, left leg, and trunk; when myostatin was compared with fat at lower limbs; when myostatin was compared with the obesity criterion according to BMI and also when it was compared with the OSA criterion for obesity (although in this case the relation of OSA with age was more marked); and with the ratio total fat mass/total lean mass. Therefore, all these data support that, in this study, a direct relationship does exist among myostatin and fat mass. This finding is in accordance with results reported by other authors, such as Amor et al. [22], who found higher serum levels of myostatin in severely obese patients compared with controls and with the observations recorded in several experimental studies strongly suggesting that myostatin may promote adipogenesis. In this sense, Lin et al. reported decreased adipogenesis in myostatin knockout mice [35]. Other studies showed that myostatin promoted the adipogenic differentiation of stem cells [36,37], but Lei et al. report an inhibition of adipogenesis by myostatin [38].
The relationship of myostatin with fat tissue is complex. In experimental studies, inhibition of myostatin led to the transformation of white adipose tissue into brown adipose tissue and provoked an increase in fatty acid oxidation and energy expenditure [39]. Strikingly, the effects of myostatin on fat and lean mass were observed when myostatin gene expression was inhibited in muscle, but no effect was observed when the inhibition took place in adipose tissue [40]. Possibly, the effects provoked by the inhibition of myostatin in muscle leading to increased fatty acid oxidation and reducing fat mass provide the fuel necessary to meet the increased metabolic demand of hypertrophied muscles.
Some data support an indirect effect of myostatin on muscle and fat mass. Myostatin would attenuate the effects of growth hormone on the liver [41]. Growth hormone (GH) is heavily involved in lipid and fat metabolism [42]. Therefore, it could be speculated that attenuation of GH’s action by myostatin could be associated with increased fat deposition.
The effects of cytokines on myostatin secretion have been also explored. In a recent experimental study, Li et al. provide data that suggests that myostatin-mediated muscle wasting observed in experimentally induced lung carcinoma is governed by TNF-α, pointing to the possible existence of a TNF-α/myostatin axis [43]. There is general agreement that adipose tissue—especially trunk fat—induces TNF-α secretion [44], and it is also clear that proinflammatory cytokines induce muscle wasting and loss of adipose tissue [44,45]. Carvalho et al. found a positive correlation between TNF-α and myostatin in obese patients, reporting increased myostatin levels in obese patients with at least three features of the metabolic syndrome (“unhealthy phenotype”) [23]. These results are not supported by this study. We found that myostatin was directly related to trunk fat and gynoid fat accumulation, which is considered a “protective” fat. In addition, we failed to find any relation among myostatin and diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia.
What is the relevance of the direct relationship observed between myostatin and fat in alcoholics? Fat accumulation in these patients has a complex pathophysiology, influenced by many factors not only related to metabolic disturbance but also to lifestyle, nutrition, and even social status [10]. Further studies are required to disentangle the connections between the proinflammatory state of alcoholics, especially if cirrhosis ensues, the altered fat deposition and muscle atrophy of these patients, and the altered myostatin levels. Although the present study should be viewed as a preliminary report due to the small number of patients, the results here suggest the possibility of a cross talk between myostatin and fat mass in alcoholic patients. Many alcoholics with chronic myopathy are severely undernourished. It could be hypothesized that sarcopenia, through decreased myostatin secretion, would “protect” the alcoholic patient from obesity, although many factors other than myostatin are involved in the altered nutritional status in these patients.
As with fat mass, relationships between myostatin and bone are controversial. For instance, Ma et al. found no relationship between BMD and myostatin in healthy postmenopausal women [46], a result in accordance with the data here reported. However, other researchers have reported inverse correlations between myostatin and BMD [47,48]. Available experimental data indicate that myostatin knock-out mice show increased BMD that was attributed to increased weight (the effect disappeared with unloading [49]), and not to a direct effect of myostatin on bone cells. However, later it was suggested that myostatin could inhibit the recruitment and differentiation of osteoprogenitor cells [50,51]. Myostatin may also activate osteoclasts [52]. The relevance of these mechanisms in alcohol-mediated bone changes is unknown.
This study has several limitations. The sample is relatively small. A lack of relationship (or difference) between two variables in a small sample could be attributed to a type II error. This could be the case regarding the lack of relationships among myostatin and handgrip or among myostatin and BMD or BMC, but this is unlikely regarding other variables related to lean mass or bone mass since the lack of a relationship was absolute without any trend that could suggest an effect of the sample size.
The fact that only men were included in this study may constitute another limitation of this research; however, on the other hand, although OSA criteria include different cut-off points for lean appendicular mass, handgrip strength, and obesity for men and women, relationships between myostatin and the crude DEXA-assessed simple variables could be distorted if men and women would have been analyzed together. As shown in Table 4, a high proportion of patients show some OSA features. It has been reported that myostatin is involved in the development of OSA [24,25] and probably also in alcoholics, but in this study, in accordance with the results obtained analyzing the simple variables derived from DEXA, the only OSA criterion associated with myostatin alteration was obesity. Although the relationship was displaced by age when a multivariate analysis was performed, this last result also underscores the importance of myostatin in the adiposity of alcoholic patients.

4. Materials and Methods

We prospectively included 59 patients aged 59.25 ± 11.09 years, consecutively admitted to our hospitalization unit due to organic complications related to excessive ethanol ingestion. Only men were included given the marked differences in body composition among men and women and the possibly different relationship between myostatin and muscle mass among men and women [53].
Patients who consumed other drugs besides tobacco were not included in the study. Alcohol consumption was assessed by direct inquiry (to the patients and/or their relatives), recording the type of beverage and the daily amount consumed was estimated using the following formula: volume of ethanol consumed (in g) = degree of beverage (in %) × beverage volume) × alcohol density (0.8). The control group consisted of 18 healthy male hospital workers, aged 54.44 ± 8.10 years (T = 1.70; p = 0.093, NS) and were drinkers of less than 10 g ethanol/day. Individuals included in this control group also underwent complete laboratory evaluation, assessment of BMI, and handgrip strength (Table 1).
In addition, to complete routine laboratory evaluation, patients also underwent abdominal ultrasound (US) examination. The presence of splenomegaly and/or portal dilatation and a heterogeneous liver structure and irregular shape, together with altered levels either of albumin (<3.5 g/dL), bilirubin (>2.0 mg/dL), or prothrombin activity (<60%), are used to classify the patients having cirrhosis, a condition fulfilled by 27 out of the 59 patients, whereas the remaining 32 were classified as patients without cirrhosis. To achieve a global assessment of liver function, we applied the Child–Pugh score [54,55] to the whole sample, despite being aware that this score was initially designed as a prognostic tool only for patients with cirrhosis. The Child score is based on the alteration of the following variables: serum albumin, bilirubin, prothrombin activity, and presence/severity of ascites and/or encephalopathy (Table 5).

4.1. Laboratory Assessment: Myostatin

Within the first 72 h after admission, blood samples were taken at 8.00 a.m. in fasting conditions and were immediately frozen at −20 °C. Serum myostatin levels were determined by quantitative sandwich enzyme immunoassay technique (R&D Systems, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK). Each serum sample needed a pretreatment with acid hydrolysis and posterior adjustment to PH 7.4 with HEPES buffer to cleave the active peptide (myostatin) of the original propeptide. We have strictly followed the recommendations of the ELISA manufacturer (R&D Systems, Abingdon Science Park, Abingdon, UK). The yellow final complex was measured at 450 nm in a microplate spectrophotometer reader (Spectra MAX-190, Molecular Devices, Sunnyvale, CA 94089, USA). The calibration curve was prepared with authentic myostatin standards. The coefficient of correlation of the standard curve was 0.997. The detection limit of this assay was established at 2.25 pg/mL; the intra and interassay CV were 3.23% and 4.23%, respectively. The antibody used to coat wells of the plate in this ELISA kit is a human specific monoclonal one. This assay recognizes natural and recombinant mature myostatin. No significant cross-reactivity or interference was observed with other peptides as activin RIIA, activin RIIB, decorin, GASP-2, GDF-11, and GDF-15. The molecules listed previously were prepared at 50 ng/mL in calibrator diluent and assayed for cross-reactivity.
Routine laboratory testing was done for all patients and controls. We recorded prothrombin activity, bilirubin, and albumin, and further calculated the Child–Pugh score. Mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) were considered “markers” of ethanol consumption.

4.2. Body Composition

Forty-six patients underwent a total body composition analysis, recording fat and lean mass at right arm, left arm, right leg, left leg, trunk, and total body, as well as gynoid and android fat and lean mass. This was assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with a LUNAR PRODIGY ADVANCE device, General Electric, Piscataway, NJ, USA), following standard criteria [56]. We also recorded body mass index (as weight (in kg)/height (in m2)). Handgrip (dominant hand) was also assessed by a Collins dynamometer in 51 patients. Impaired clinical conditions impeded assessment of handgrip in the remaining 8 patients and also impeded DEXA assessment in 13 patients and recording of height/or weight in 12 patients.
In order to assess the presence or not of osteosarcopenic obesity (OSA), we followed recently reported criteria [57,58], defining sarcopenia as a handgrip strength lower than 28 kg (OSA handgrip) and an appendicular skeletal mass index (appendicular skeletal mass (in kg)/height (in m2)) lower than 7.26 kg/m2 (OSA lean mass); OSA osteoporosis as a femoral neck T-score ≤ −2.5; osteopenia as a femoral T-score ≤ 1; and OSA obesity as percent body fat ≥ 25%. We also calculated OSA android/gynoid fat distribution ≤ 1 (as a surrogate of visceral fat).

4.3. Statistics

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess if the variables to be analyzed were normally distributed or not. Nonparametric tests, such as Mann–Whitney´s U test and Kruskal–Wallis test and Spearman´s correlation analysis were used to analyze differences or correlations among nonparametric variables. When the variables subjected to analysis showed a normal distribution, Student´s t test, variance analysis, and Pearson´s correlation analysis were used. We also performed multivariate analyses (stepwise logistic regression and/or multiple correlation analyses) in order to test the independence or not of the relationships between myostatin and fat variables. All these analyses were performed with the SPSS program version 25 (Chicago, Ill., USA).
The study protocol was approved by the local ethical committee of our Hospital (number 2017/50) and conforms to the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. All the patients gave their written informed consent.

5. Conclusions

We conclude that serum myostatin was lower among excessive drinkers, among whom sarcopenia was observed in 57% of cases and reduced handgrip strength in 77% of cases. Myostatin levels were independently related to increased fat deposition among alcoholics (observed in 71% of patients) but not to bone mass, lean mass, or handgrip strength. Obese alcoholic patients showed higher myostatin levels, a result that does not depend on the presence of liver cirrhosis or age.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.M.-G. and E.G.-R.; Formal analysis, P.A.-G.; Investigation, O.P.-H., A.G.-R., P.O.-T., C.M.F.-R., J.C.A.-N. and A.M.-R.; Resources, P.A.-G.; Supervision, E.G.-R.; Writing—original draft, C.M.-G. and E.G.-R.; Writing—review and editing, C.M.-G. and E.G.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Hospital Universitario de Canarias (protocol code CHUC_2017_50 and date of approval: 29 June 2017).

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 request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Internal Medicine Unit of the Hospital Universitario de Canarias for their collaboration in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ilich, J.Z.; Gilman, J.C.; Cvijetic, S.; Boschiero, D. Chronic Stress Contributes to Osteosarcopenic Adiposity via Inflammation and Immune Modulation: The Case for More Precise Nutritional Investigation. Nutrients 2020, 12, 989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ilich, J.Z.; Kelly, O.J.; Inglis, J.E.; Panton, L.B.; Duque, G.; Ormsbee, M.J. Interrelationship among Muscle, Fat, and Bone: Connecting the Dots on Cellular, Hormonal, and Whole Body Levels. Ageing Res. Rev. 2014, 15, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hirschfeld, H.P.; Kinsella, R.; Duque, G. Osteosarcopenia: Where Bone, Muscle, and Fat Collide. Osteoporos. Int. 2017, 28, 2781–2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Oh, S.; Lee, J. Sarcopenia and Blood Myokine Levels as Prognostic Biomarkers in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis or Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin. Mol. Hepatol 2020, 26, 476–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rolland, Y.; van Kan, G.A.; Gillette-Guyonnet, S.; Vellas, B. Cachexia versus Sarcopenia. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2011, 14, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fielding, R.A.; Vellas, B.; Evans, W.J.; Bhasin, S.; Morley, J.E.; Newman, A.B.; Abellan van Kan, G.; Andrieu, S.; Bauer, J.; Breuille, D.; et al. Sarcopenia: An Undiagnosed Condition in Older Adults. Current Consensus Definition: Prevalence, Etiology, and Consequences. International Working Group on Sarcopenia. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2011, 12, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Duane, P.; Peters, T.J. Nutritional Status in Alcoholics with and without Chronic Skeletal Muscle Myopathy. Alcohol Alcohol. 1988, 23, 271–277. [Google Scholar]
  8. Preedy, V.R.; Ohlendieck, K.; Adachi, J.; Koll, M.; Sneddon, A.; Hunter, R.; Rajendram, R.; Mantle, D.; Peters, T.J. The Importance of Alcohol-Induced Muscle Disease. J. Muscle Res. Cell Motil. 2003, 24, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dasarathy, J.; McCullough, A.J.; Dasarathy, S. Sarcopenia in Alcoholic Liver Disease: Clinical and Molecular Advances. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2017, 41, 1419–1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Traversy, G.; Chaput, J.P. Alcohol Consumption and Obesity: An Update. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2015, 4, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Simon, L.; Jolley, S.E.; Molina, P.E. Alcoholic Myopathy: Pathophysiologic Mechanisms and Clinical Implications. Alcohol Res. 2017, 38, 207. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Pascual-Fernández, J.; Fernández-Montero, A.; Córdova-Martínez, A.; Pastor, D.; Martínez-Rodríguez, A.; Roche, E. Sarcopenia: Molecular Pathways and Potential Targets for Intervention. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2020, 21, 8844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Yang, Y.J.; Kim, D.J. An Overview of the Molecular Mechanisms Contributing to Musculoskeletal Disorders in Chronic Liver Disease: Osteoporosis, Sarcopenia, and Osteoporotic Sarcopenia. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2021, 22, 2604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Qiu, J.; Thapaliya, S.; Runkana, A.; Yang, Y.; Tsien, C.; Mohan, M.L.; Narayanan, A.; Eghtesad, B.; Mozdziak, P.E.; McDonald, C.; et al. Hyperammonemia in Cirrhosis Induces Transcriptional Regulation of Myostatin by an NF-ΚB-Mediated Mechanism. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 18162–18167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Suh, J.; Lee, Y.S. Myostatin Inhibitors: Panacea or Predicament for Musculoskeletal Disorders? J. Bone Metab. 2020, 27, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sato, S.; Namisaki, T.; Murata, K.; Fujimoto, Y.; Takeda, S.; Enomoto, M.; Shibamoto, A.; Ishida, K.; Ogawa, H.; Takagi, H.; et al. The Association between Sarcopenia and Endotoxin in Patients with Alcoholic Cirrhosis. Medicine 2021, 100, e27212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alexopoulus, T.; Vasilieva, L.; Kontogianni, M.D.; Tenta, R.; Georgiou, A.; Stroumpouli, E.; Mani, I.; Alexopoulou, A. Myostatin in Combination with Creatine Phosphokinase or Albumin May Differentiate Patients with Cirrhosis and Sarcopenia. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2021, 321, G543–G551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nishikawa, H.; Enomoto, H.; Ishii, A.; Iwata, Y.; Miyamoto, Y.; Ishii, N.; Yuri, Y.; Hasegawa, K.; Nakano, C.; Nishimura, T.; et al. Elevated Serum Myostatin Level Is Associated with Worse Survival in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017, 8, 915–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Stolz, L.E.; Li, D.; Qadri, A.; Jalenak, M.; Klaman, L.D.; Tobin, J.F. Administration of Myostatin Does Not Alter Fat Mass in Adult Mice. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2008, 10, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deng, B.; Zhang, F.; Wen, J.; Ye, S.; Wang, L.; Yang, Y.; Gong, P.; Jiang, S. The Function of Myostatin in the Regulation of Fat Mass in Mammals. Nutr. Metab. (Lond.) 2017, 14, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pan, H.; Ping, X.-C.; Zhu, H.-J.; Gong, F.-Y.; Dong, C.-X.; Li, N.-S.; Wang, L.-J.; Yang, H.-B. Association of Myostatin Gene Polymorphisms with Obesity in Chinese North Han Human Subjects. Gene 2012, 494, 237–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Amor, M.; Itariu, B.K.; Moreno-Viedma, V.; Keindl, M.; Jürets, A.; Prager, G.; Langer, F.; Grablowitz, V.; Zeyda, M.; Stulnig, T.M. Serum Myostatin Is Upregulated in Obesity and Correlates with Insulin Resistance in Humans. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 2019, 127, 550–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Carvalho, L.P.; Basso-Vanelli, R.P.; di Thommazo-Luporini, L.; Mendes, R.G.; Oliveira-Junior, M.C.; Vieira, R.d.P.; Bonjorno-Junior, J.C.; Oliveira, C.R.; Luporini, R.; Borghi-Silva, A. Myostatin and Adipokines: The Role of the Metabolically Unhealthy Obese Phenotype in Muscle Function and Aerobic Capacity in Young Adults. Cytokine 2018, 107, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scimeca, M.; Piccirilli, E.; Mastrangeli, F.; Rao, C.; Feola, M.; Orlandi, A.; Gasbarra, E.; Bonanno, E.; Tarantino, U. Bone Morphogenetic Proteins and Myostatin Pathways: Key Mediator of Human Sarcopenia. J. Transl. Med. 2017, 15, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Polyzos, S.A.; Margioris, A.N. Sarcopenic Obesity. Hormones (Athens) 2018, 17, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Baczek, J.; Silkiewicz, M.; Wojszel, Z.B. Myostatin as a Biomarker of Muscle Wasting and Other Pathologies-State of the Art and Knowledge Gaps. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Malla, J.; Zahra, A.; Venugopal, S.; Selvamani, T.Y.; Shoukrie, S.I.; Selvaraj, R.; Dhanoa, R.K.; Hamouda, R.K.; Mostafa, J. What Role Do Inflammatory Cytokines Play in Cancer Cachexia? Cureus 2022, 14, e26798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. McFarlane, C.; Hui, G.Z.; Amanda, W.Z.W.; Lau, H.Y.; Lokireddy, S.; Ge, X.; Mouly, V.; Butler-Browne, G.; Gluckman, P.D.; Sharma, M.; et al. Human Myostatin Negatively Regulates Human Myoblast Growth and Differentiation. Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 2011, 301, C195–C203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gonzalez-Reimers, E.; Santolaria-Fernandez, F.; Martin-Gonzalez, M.C.; Fernandez-Rodriguez, C.M.; Quintero-Platt, G. Alcoholism: A Systemic Proinflammatory Condition. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014, 20, 14660–14671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ji, Y.; Li, M.; Chang, M.; Liu, R.; Qiu, J.; Wang, K.; Deng, C.; Shen, Y.; Zhu, J.; Wang, W.; et al. Inflammation: Roles in Skeletal Muscle Atrophy. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Alvarez, A.M.; DeOcesano-Pereira, C.; Teixeira, C.; Moreira, V. IL-1β and TNF-α Modulation of Proliferated and Committed Myoblasts: IL-6 and COX-2-Derived Prostaglandins as Key Actors in the Mechanisms Involved. Cells 2020, 9, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tsien, C.; Davuluri, G.; Singh, D.; Allawy, A.; ten Have, G.A.M.; Thapaliya, S.; Schulze, J.M.; Barnes, D.; McCullough, A.J.; Engelen, M.P.K.J.; et al. Metabolic and Molecular Responses to Leucine-Enriched Branched Chain Amino Acid Supplementation in the Skeletal Muscle of Alcoholic Cirrhosis. Hepatology 2015, 61, 2018–2029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. García, P.S.; Cabbabe, A.; Kambadur, R.; Nicholas, G.; Csete, M. Brief-Reports: Elevated Myostatin Levels in Patients with Liver Disease: A Potential Contributor to Skeletal Muscle Wasting. Anesth. Analg. 2010, 111, 707–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Delogu, W.; Caligiuri, A.; Provenzano, A.; Rosso, C.; Bugianesi, E.; Coratti, A.; Macias-Barragan, J.; Galastri, S.; di Maira, G.; Marra, F. Myostatin Regulates the Fibrogenic Phenotype of Hepatic Stellate Cells via C-Jun N-Terminal Kinase Activation. Dig. Liver Dis. 2019, 51, 1400–1408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Lin, J.; Arnold, H.B.; Della-Fera, M.A.; Azain, M.J.; Hartzell, D.L.; Baile, C.A. Myostatin Knockout in Mice Increases Myogenesis and Decreases Adipogenesis. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2002, 291, 701–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Artaza, J.N.; Bhasin, S.; Magee, T.R.; Reisz-Porszasz, S.; Shen, R.; Groome, N.P.; Meerasahib, M.F.; Gonzalez-Cadavid, N.F. Myostatin Inhibits Myogenesis and Promotes Adipogenesis in C3H 10T(1/2) Mesenchymal Multipotent Cells. Endocrinology 2005, 146, 3547–3557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guo, W.; Flanagan, J.; Jasuja, R.; Kirkland, J.; Jiang, L.; Bhasin, S. The Effects of Myostatin on Adipogenic Differentiation of Human Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells Are Mediated through Cross-Communication between Smad3 and Wnt/Beta-Catenin Signaling Pathways. J. Biol. Chem. 2008, 283, 9136–9145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lei, H.; Yu, B.; Yang, X.; Liu, Z.; Huang, Z.; Mao, X.; Tian, G.; He, J.; Han, G.; Chen, H.; et al. Inhibition of Adipogenic Differentiation by Myostatin Is Alleviated by Arginine Supplementation in Porcine-Muscle-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Sci. China Life Sci. 2011, 54, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dong, J.; Dong, Y.; Dong, Y.; Chen, F.; Mitch, W.E.; Zhang, L. Inhibition of Myostatin in Mice Improves Insulin Sensitivity via Irisin-Mediated Cross Talk between Muscle and Adipose Tissues. Int. J. Obes. (Lond) 2016, 40, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Allen, D.L.; Hittel, D.S.; McPherron, A.C. Expression and Function of Myostatin in Obesity, Diabetes, and Exercise Adaptation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 1828–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Czaja, W.; Nakamura, Y.K.; Li, N.; Eldridge, J.A.; DeAvila, D.M.; Thompson, T.B.; Rodgers, B.D. Myostatin Regulates Pituitary Development and Hepatic IGF1. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2019, 316, E1036–E1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aguirre, G.A.; de Ita, J.R.; de la Garza, R.G.; Castilla-Cortazar, I. Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 Deficiency and Metabolic Syndrome. J. Transl. Med. 2016, 14, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Li, Y.; Zhang, F.; Modrak, S.; Little, A.; Zhang, H. Chronic Alcohol Consumption Enhances Skeletal Muscle Wasting in Mice Bearing Cachectic Cancers: The Role of TNFα/Myostatin Axis. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2020, 44, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hube, F.; Hauner, H. The Role of TNF-Alpha in Human Adipose Tissue: Prevention of Weight Gain at the Expense of Insulin Resistance? Horm. Metab. Res. 1999, 31, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Patel, H.J.; Patel, B.M. TNF-α and Cancer Cachexia: Molecular Insights and Clinical Implications. Life Sci. 2017, 170, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ma, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, H.; Ou, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, S.; Wu, F.; Sheng, Z.; Liao, E. Serum Myostatin in Central South Chinese Postmenopausal Women: Relationship with Body Composition, Lipids and Bone Mineral Density. Endocr. Res. 2016, 41, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ambroszkiewicz, J.; Chełchowska, M.; Mazur, J.; Rowicka, G.; Gajewska, J. Relationships between Body Weight Status and Serum Levels of Adipokine, Myokine and Bone Metabolism Parameters in Healthy Normal Weight and Thin Children. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, L.-F.; Zhu, D.-C.; Wang, B.-H.; Lu, Y.-H.; He, P.; Zhang, Y.-H.; Gao, H.-Q.; Zhu, X.-W.; Xia, W.; Zhu, H.; et al. Relative Abundance of Mature Myostatin Rather than Total Myostatin Is Negatively Associated with Bone Mineral Density in Chinese. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2018, 22, 1329–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hamrick, M.W.; Shi, X.; Zhang, W.; Pennington, C.; Thakore, H.; Haque, M.; Kang, B.; Isales, C.M.; Fulzele, S.; Wenger, K.H. Loss of Myostatin (GDF8) Function Increases Osteogenic Differentiation of Bone Marrow-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells but the Osteogenic Effect Is Ablated with Unloading. Bone 2007, 40, 1544–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Qin, Y.; Peng, Y.; Zhao, W.; Pan, J.; Ksiezak-Reding, H.; Cardozo, C.; Wu, Y.; Divieti Pajevic, P.; Bonewald, L.F.; Bauman, W.A.; et al. Myostatin Inhibits Osteoblastic Differentiation by Suppressing Osteocyte-Derived Exosomal MicroRNA-218: A Novel Mechanism in Muscle-Bone Communication. J. Biol. Chem. 2017, 292, 11021–11033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kellum, E.; Starr, H.; Arounleut, P.; Immel, D.; Fulzele, S.; Wenger, K.; Hamrick, M.W. Myostatin (GDF-8) Deficiency Increases Fracture Callus Size, Sox-5 Expression, and Callus Bone Volume. Bone 2009, 44, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Dankbar, B.; Fennen, M.; Brunert, D.; Hayer, S.; Frank, S.; Wehmeyer, C.; Beckmann, D.; Paruzel, P.; Bertrand, J.; Redlich, K.; et al. Myostatin Is a Direct Regulator of Osteoclast Differentiation and Its Inhibition Reduces Inflammatory Joint Destruction in Mice. Nat. Med. 2015, 21, 1085–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Baig, M.H.; Ahmad, K.; Moon, J.S.; Park, S.Y.; Ho Lim, J.; Chun, H.J.; Qadri, A.F.; Hwang, Y.C.; Jan, A.T.; Ahmad, S.S.; et al. Myostatin and Its Regulation: A Comprehensive Review of Myostatin Inhibiting Strategies. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Child, C.; Turcotte, J. Surgery and Portal Hypertension. Major Probl. Clin. Surg. 1964, 1, 1–85. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pugh, R.N.H.; Murray-Lyon, I.M.; Dawson, J.L.; Pietroni, M.C.; Williams, R. Transection of the Oesophagus for Bleeding Oesophageal Varices. Br. J. Surg. 1973, 60, 646–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Imboden, M.T.; Swartz, A.M.; Finch, H.W.; Harber, M.P.; Kaminsky, L.A. Reference Standards for Lean Mass Measures Using GE Dual Energy X-ray Absorptiometry in Caucasian Adults. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nie, Y.-Z.; Yan, Z.-Q.; Yin, H.; Shan, L.-H.; Wang, J.-H.; Wu, Q.-H. Osteosarcopenic Obesity and Its Components-Osteoporosis, Sarcopenia, and Obesity-Are Associated with Blood Cell Count-Derived Inflammation Indices in Older Chinese People. BMC Geriatr. 2022, 22, 532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kelly, O.J.; Gilman, J.C.; Boschiero, D.; Ilich, J.Z. Osteosarcopenic Obesity: Current Knowledge, Revised Identification Criteria and Treatment Principles. Nutrients 2019, 11, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijms 24 02981 g001 550
Figure 1. Serum myostatin levels in patients (n = 59) and controls (n = 18). Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Figure 1. Serum myostatin levels in patients (n = 59) and controls (n = 18). Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Ijms 24 02981 g001
Ijms 24 02981 g002 550
Figure 2. Relationship between serum myostatin and proportion of total fat among heavy drinkers (N = 46).
Figure 2. Relationship between serum myostatin and proportion of total fat among heavy drinkers (N = 46).
Ijms 24 02981 g002
Ijms 24 02981 g003 550
Figure 3. Relationship between serum myostatin and total lean mass among patients (N = 46).
Figure 3. Relationship between serum myostatin and total lean mass among patients (N = 46).
Ijms 24 02981 g003
Ijms 24 02981 g004 550
Figure 4. Relationship between serum myostatin and body mass index among patients (N = 47).
Figure 4. Relationship between serum myostatin and body mass index among patients (N = 47).
Ijms 24 02981 g004
Ijms 24 02981 g005 550
Figure 5. Serum myostatin levels were significantly higher among patients classified as obese according to BMI. Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Figure 5. Serum myostatin levels were significantly higher among patients classified as obese according to BMI. Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Ijms 24 02981 g005
Ijms 24 02981 g006 550
Figure 6. Serum myostatin levels were significantly higher in patients with at least 1 OSA criterion (80.43%). Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Figure 6. Serum myostatin levels were significantly higher in patients with at least 1 OSA criterion (80.43%). Circles correspond to outliers, and asterisks correspond to extreme outliers.
Ijms 24 02981 g006
Table
Table 1. Some biological differences among patients and controls and among patients with and without cirrhosis.
Table 1. Some biological differences among patients and controls and among patients with and without cirrhosis.
Patients (n = 59)Controls (n = 18)Z(T); pCirrhosis (n = 27)No Cirrhosis (n = 32)Z(T); p
Age (years)59.25 ± 11.0954.44 ± 8.10T = 1.70; 0.09359.19 ± 9.4859.31 ± 12.43T = 0.44; NS
Myostatin levels (pg/mL)978.48 ± 805.84
763.08 (450.36–1164.48)		1440.89 ± 479.62
1389.22 (1147.08–1694.79)		Z = 3.80; p < 0.001996.10 ± 810.13
763.08 (450.36–1273.24)		963.61 ± 814.86
786.94 (459.79–1102.74)		Z = 0.24; NS
Handgrip (kp)17.20 ± 14.0738.88 ± 9.73T = 5.89; p < 0.00116.04 ± 10.9918.22 ± 16.482T = 0.56; NS
BMI (kg/m2)26.66 ± 5.16
25.26 (23.80–27.68)		25.34 ± 2.28
24.41 (23.72–26.37)		Z = 0.54; p = 0.5926.44 ± 4.74
25.26 (23.71–26.51)		26.90 ± 5.66
26.06 (23.80–28.30)		Z = 0.27; NS
Ethanol ingestion
Daily ethanol consumption (g)200.58 ± 171.49
160.00 (96.00–240.00)		--179.11 ± 88.20
192.00 (125.00–240.00)		218.69 ± 218.53
140.50 (96.00–272.00)		Z = 0.38; NS
Years of addiction32.92 ± 15.17--33.22 ± 13.1732.66 ± 16.87T = 0.14; NS
MCV101.38 ± 9.2591.97 ± 3.53T = 6.37; p < 0.001101.72 ± 12.29101.09 ± 5.76T = 0.26; NS
GGT288.33 ± 348.83
175.50 (54.50–375.25)		23.06 ± 6.02
22.00 (18.50–26.00)		Z = 4.95; p < 0.001405.48 ± 428.81
307.00 (76.00–611.00)		196.29 ± 220.73
92.00 (41.00–316.00)		Z = 2.25; p = 0.025
Albumin3.59 ± 0.674.58 ± 0.32T = 8.54; p < 0.0013.57 ± 0.743.60 ± 0.60T = 0.20; NS
Prothrombin76.88 ± 19.7097.65 ± 3.44T = 7.70; p < 0.00166.63 ± 22.185.53 ± 12.13T = 3.97; p < 0.001
Bilirubin2.29 ± 3.42
1.00 (1.00–2.30)		0.99 ± 0.06
1.00 (1.00–1.00)		Z = 2.73; p = 0.0063.56 ± 4.72
2.00 (1.00–3.30)		1.21 ± 0.72
1.00 (1.00–1.00)		Z = 4.35; p < 0.001
Body composition (g) *
Right arm fat mass970.96 ± 529.35--1048.96 ± 526.74889.57 ± 531.29T = 1.03; NS
Left arm fat mass961.00 ± 503.55--991.33 ± 459.07929.35 ± 554.80T = 0.42; NS
Right leg fat mass2954.94 ±1609.91--3133.25 ± 1576.382768.87 ± 1658.44T = 0.77; NS
Left leg fat mass2929.83 ± 1609.92--3117.75 ± 1636.902733.74 ± 1593.53T = 0.81; NS
Trunk fat mass12,590.72 ± 6077.49--13,686.38 ± 6065.8311,447.43 ± 6007.22T = 1.27; NS
Total fat mass20,747.47 ± 9849.06--21,936.42 ± 9699.4519,506.83 ± 10,065.76T = 0.84; NS
Android fat mass2230.55 ± 1095.30--2337.71 ± 1106.442118.74 ± 1096.82T = 0.68; NS
Gynoid fat mass3489.94 ± 1929.80--3813.58 ± 2011.833152.22 ± 1822.60T = 1.18; NS
Right arm lean mass2796.26 ± 616.76--2830.46 ± 516.252760.56 ± 717.02T = 0.85; NS
Left arm lean mass2786.09 ± 663.97--2704.83 ± 568.572870.87 ± 754.39T = 0.85; NS
Right leg lean mass7460.89 ± 1796.58--7697.46 ± 1806.727214.04 ± 1792.05T = 0.92; NS
Left leg lean mass7391.47 ± 1781.77--7607.42 ± 1889.437166.13 ± 1673.86T = 0.85; NS
Trunk lean mass24,854.57 ± 4554.08--25,570.08 ± 5123.5723,951.71 ± 3774.99T = 1.34; NS
Total lean mass49,044.55 ± 8623.82--50,315.71 ± 8870.3647,718.13 ± 8345.03T = 1.03; NS
Android lean mass3947.15 ± 1045.88--4189.58 ± 1240.063694.17 ± 740.61T = 1.65; NS
Gynoid lean mass6276.66 ± 1571.75--6521.38 ± 1277.616021.30 ± 1823.58T = 1.09; NS
Total BMC2823.77 ± 522.96--2891.38 ± 526.602753.22 ± 521.29T = 0.90; NS
Right arm BMC250.49 ± 37.34--215.00 ± 36.71287.52 ± 42.76T = 0.83; NS
Left arm BMC203.43 ± 38.35--201.25 ± 34.59205.70 ± 42.60T = 0.39; NS
Right leg BMC537.30 ± 107.26--554.75 ± 111.49519.09 ± 101.90T = 1.14; NS
Left leg BMC538.81 ± 111.54--549.63 ± 119.40527.53 ± 104.15T = 0.68; NS
Trunk BMC870.89 ± 238.82--919.17 ± 239.15820.53 ± 232.95T = 1.43; NS
Total BMD1.19 ± 0.11--1.200 ± 0.1201.190 ± 0.110T = 0.41; NS
Pelvis BMD1.12 ± 0.15--1.162 ± 0.1461.085 ± 0.147T = 1.80; NS
Total hip BMD0.99 ± 0.21--1.027 ± 0.1970.949 ± 0.227T = 1.27; NS
Spine BMD1.12 ± 0.16--1.132 ± 0.1431.107 ± 0.169T = 0.54; NS
We show mean values ± SD and also the median value and interquartile range for those variables that did not show a parametric distribution. BMI: body mass index. BMC: bone mineral content. BMD: bone mineral density. * BMD is given in g/cm3.
Table
Table 2. Relationships between myostatin and fat variables assessed by stepwise multiple regression analyses.
Table 2. Relationships between myostatin and fat variables assessed by stepwise multiple regression analyses.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin1.9480.6870.3932.8370.0070.5643.332
* Dependent variable: Fat at lower limbs. ** Non-selected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin0.0040.0020.3242.2700.0280.0000.007
* Dependent variable: Proportion of total fat. ** Non-selected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin0.0040.0020.3692.6310.0120.0010.008
* Dependent variable: Gynoid fat distribution. ** Non-selected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin0.9860.3430.3982.8750.0060.2951.677
* Dependent variable: Right leg fat. ** Non-selected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin0.9620.3440.3882.7930.0080.2681.656
* Dependent variable: Left leg fat. ** Non-selected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin2.8351.3470.3022.1040.0410.1205.550
* Dependent variable: Trunk fat. ** Unselected variables: age and cirrhosis.
Table
Table 3. Relationships between myostatin and BMI assessed by stepwise multiple regression analyses.
Table 3. Relationships between myostatin and BMI assessed by stepwise multiple regression analyses.
Unstandardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients 95% Confidence Interval for B
VariableBStandard ErrorBetaTpLower BoundUpper Bound
Serum myostatin0.0030.0010.4082.7940.0080.0010.005
Dependent variable: body mass index. Unselected variables: age, cirrhosis.
Table
Table 4. Relationships between serum myostatin and OSA criteria.
Table 4. Relationships between serum myostatin and OSA criteria.
Serum Myostatin
Below the Median (705.9 pg/mL) (n = 24)		Serum Myostatin
Over the Median (705.9 pg/mL) (n = 22)		T (Z); p
Handgrip (kp)14.04 ± 11.5120.23 ± 15.79T = 1.60; p = 0.12
Femoral Neck T-Score−0.64 ± 1.42−0.62 ± 1.57T = 0.03; NS
Appendicular lean mass/height2 (Kg/m2)6.99 ± 1.237.17 ± 1.37T = 0.44; NS
Proportion of total fat > 25%
(%)		26.46 ± 7.95
27.10 (18.60–34.33)		31.32 ± 7.34
31.85 (28.05–38.33)		Z = 2.15; p = 0.037
Android/Gynoid fat ratio1.00 ± 0.271.06 ± 0.15T = 0.94; NS
We show mean values ± SD and also the median value and interquartile range for those variables that did not show a parametric distribution.
Table
Table 5. Child–Pugh score.
Table 5. Child–Pugh score.
Clinical and Laboratory CriteriaPoints
123
Bilirubin (mg/dL)<22–3>3
Albumin (g/dL)>3.52.8–3.5<2.8
Prothrombin time
%>6040–60<40
International normalized ratio<1.71.7–2.3>2.3
EncephalopathyNoneMild to moderate (grade 1 or 2)Severe (grade 3 or 4)
AscitesNoneMild to moderate (diuretic responsive)Severe (diuretic refractory)
Child–Pugh Class obtained by adding score for each parameter (total points): Class A = 5 to 6 points (least severe liver disease). Class B = 7 to 9 points (moderately severe liver disease). Class C = 10 to 15 points (most severe liver disease).
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

Martín-González, C.; Pérez-Hernández, O.; García-Rodríguez, A.; Abreu-González, P.; Ortega-Toledo, P.; Fernández-Rodríguez, C.M.; Alvisa-Negrín, J.C.; Martínez-Riera, A.; González-Reimers, E. Serum Myostatin among Excessive Drinkers. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032981

AMA Style

Martín-González C, Pérez-Hernández O, García-Rodríguez A, Abreu-González P, Ortega-Toledo P, Fernández-Rodríguez CM, Alvisa-Negrín JC, Martínez-Riera A, González-Reimers E. Serum Myostatin among Excessive Drinkers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(3):2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martín-González, Candelaria, Onán Pérez-Hernández, Alen García-Rodríguez, Pedro Abreu-González, Paula Ortega-Toledo, Camino María Fernández-Rodríguez, Julio César Alvisa-Negrín, Antonio Martínez-Riera, and Emilio González-Reimers. 2023. "Serum Myostatin among Excessive Drinkers" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 3: 2981. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032981

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