Back to all available

Identification of APOD as a potential marker for early sarcopenia in older adults with low skeletal muscle mass through integrated proteomic and transcriptomic profiling

bioinformatics
geriatrics
orthopedics

Abstract

Background: Sarcopenia is a progressive and widespread loss of skeletal muscle mass, strength, and function associated with aging. This study aims to analyze alterations in serum protein profiles and explore biomarkers of diagnostic significance in patients with sarcopenia through a cross-sectional study.

Methods: Six older adults with sarcopenia and five healthy older adults were included in this cross-sectional study.

Results: A total of 88 proteins were significantly differentially expressed between sarcopenia patients and healthy individuals. These proteins corresponded to 17 coding genes and were highly enriched in 112 Gene Ontology (GO) terms and the GnRH signaling pathway. In the GSE165630 dataset, 5,946 genes were differentially expressed between sedentary and trained individuals, with enrichment in 2,468 GO terms and 163 KEGG pathways. Four coding genes: APOD, C1QC, PVR, and MMP2 were identified as overlapping between the 17 coding genes and the 9,646 differentially expressed genes (DEGs). These four genes were significantly enriched in 236 GO terms and 14 KEGG pathways. Notably, APOD was highly expressed in sarcopenia patients and demonstrated diagnostic value. Functional enrichment analysis suggested that APOD may play a multifaceted role in sarcopenia by modulating key pathways involved in metabolism and inflammation.

Conclusion: This study integrated proteomic profiling in sarcopenia patients with low muscle mass and identified APOD as a potential biomarker with diagnostic value.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].