English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Metabolic profile and metabolite analyses in extreme weight responders to gastric bypass surgery

MPS-Authors

Lammert,  Mathis
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons227468

Medawar,  Evelyn
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons19734

Horstmann,  Annette
Department Neurology, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;
Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, Finland;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

Fries_2022.pdf
(Publisher version), 4MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Fries, C., Haange, S.-B., Rolle-Kampczyk, U., Till, A., Lammert, M., Medawar, E., et al. (2022). Metabolic profile and metabolite analyses in extreme weight responders to gastric bypass surgery. Metabolites, 12(5): 417. doi:10.3390/metabo12050417.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-000A-7DA9-C
Abstract
Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery belongs to the most frequently performed surgical therapeutic strategies against adiposity and its comorbidities. However, outcome is limited in a substantial cohort of patients with inadequate primary weight loss or considerable weight regain. In this study, gut microbiota composition and systemically released metabolites were analyzed in a cohort of extreme weight responders after RYGB. Methods: Patients (n = 23) were categorized based on excess weight loss (EWL) at a minimum of two years after RYGB in a good responder (EWL 93 ± 4.3%) or a bad responder group (EWL 19.5 ± 13.3%) for evaluation of differences in metabolic outcome, eating behavior and gut microbiota taxonomy and metabolic activity. Results: Mean BMI was 47.2 ± 6.4 kg/m2 in the bad vs. 26.6 ± 1.2 kg/m2 in the good responder group (p = 0.0001). We found no difference in hunger and satiety sensation, in fasting or postprandial gut hormone release, or in gut microbiota composition between both groups. Differences in weight loss did not reflect in metabolic outcome after RYGB. While fecal and circulating metabolite analyses showed higher levels of propionate (p = 0.0001) in good and valerate (p = 0.04) in bad responders, respectively, conjugated primary and secondary bile acids were higher in good responders in the fasted (p = 0.03) and postprandial state (GCA, p = 0.02; GCDCA, p = 0.02; TCA, p = 0.01; TCDCA, p = 0.02; GDCA, p = 0.05; GUDCA, p = 0.04; TLCA, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Heterogenous weight loss response to RYGB surgery separates from patients’ metabolic outcome, and is linked to unique serum metabolite signatures post intervention. These findings suggest that the level of adiposity reduction alone is insufficient to assess the metabolic success of RYGB surgery, and that longitudinal metabolite profiling may eventually help us to identify markers that could predict individual adiposity response to surgery and guide patient selection and counseling.