Metabolic signatures and potential biomarkers of sarcopenia in suburb-dwelling older Chinese: based on untargeted GC–MS and LC–MS

Table 2 The top 20 metabolites contributed most to the difference in metabolic profiles

Metabolite	Status^a	VIP value^b	FC^c	Data origin	p^§
PC(14:0/20:2(11Z,14Z))	↓	30.28	0.85	LC	0.003
LysoPC(17:0)	↓	24.63	0.73	LC	< 0.001
PC(16:0/20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z))	↓	20.39	0.81	LC	< 0.001
L-2-Amino-3-oxobutanoic acid	↓	10.24	0.69	LC	< 0.001
Ethylamine	↑	10.47	4.69	GC	< 0.001
LysoPC(15:0)	↓	8.60	0.81	LC	< 0.001
PC(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0)	↓	7.71	0.82	LC	< 0.001
LysoPC(18:1(11Z))	↓	6.46	0.75	LC	< 0.001
Palmitic acid	↓	5.78	0.70	LC	< 0.001
LysoPC(16:0)	↓	5.74	0.70	LC	< 0.001
PC(P-18:0/16:0)	↓	5.05	0.86	LC	0.002
PC(18:1(9Z)/P-18:1(9Z))	↓	4.86	0.83	LC	0.006
LysoPC(20:4(8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z))	↓	4.77	0.78	LC	0.003
PI(20:4(8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z)/18:0)	↓	4.77	0.74	LC	< 0.001
PC(17:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0)	↓	4.65	0.84	LC	< 0.001
SM(d18:1/24:1(15Z))	↓	4.60	0.73	LC	< 0.001
LysoPC(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z))	↓	4.39	0.74	LC	< 0.001
PC(P-18:0/20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z))	↓	4.31	0.88	LC	0.004
LysoPC(18:0)	↓	4.19	0.82	LC	0.004
Palmitamide	↓	4.16	0.82	LC	0.048

^aRelative concentrations compared to healthy controls: ↑ = upregulated, ↓ = downregulated
^bCorrelation coefficient and VIP value were obtained from OPLS-DA analysis
^cFold change between sarcopenia patients and healthy controls
^§P value determined from Student’s t-test

ISSN: 2044-5040