Skip to main content
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Follow ada on Twitter
  • RSS
  • Visit ada on Facebook
Diabetes Care

Advanced Search

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
  • More from ADA
    • Diabetes
    • Clinical Diabetes
    • Diabetes Spectrum
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
    • ADA Scientific Sessions Abstracts
    • BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Diabetes Care
  • Home
  • Current
    • Current Issue
    • Online Ahead of Print
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Browse
    • By Topic
    • Issue Archive
    • Saved Searches
    • Special Article Collections
    • ADA Standards of Medical Care
  • Info
    • About the Journal
    • About the Editors
    • ADA Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • Guidance for Reviewers
  • Reprints/Reuse
  • Advertising
  • Subscriptions
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions and Site Licenses
    • Access Institutional Usage Reports
    • Purchase Single Issues
  • Alerts
    • E­mail Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Podcasts
    • Diabetes Core Update
    • Special Podcast Series: Therapeutic Inertia
    • Special Podcast Series: Influenza Podcasts
    • Special Podcast Series: SGLT2 Inhibitors
    • Special Podcast Series: COVID-19
  • Submit
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Journal Policies
    • Instructions for Authors
    • ADA Peer Review
Pathophysiology/Complications

Relationship of Prospective GHb to Glycated Serum Proteins in Incident Diabetic Retinopathy

Implications of the glycation gap for mechanism of risk prediction

  1. Robert M. Cohen, MD12,
  2. Tamara J. LeCaire, MS3,
  3. Christopher J. Lindsell, PHD4,
  4. Eric P. Smith, MD1 and
  5. Donn J. D'Alessio, MD3
  1. 1Division of Endocrinology, Metabolism and Diabetes, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
  2. 2General Clinical Research Center, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
  3. 3Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
  4. 4Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Robert M. Cohen, MD, University of Cincinnati, P.O. Box 670547, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0547. E-mail: robert.cohen{at}uc.edu
Diabetes Care 2008 Jan; 31(1): 151-153. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1465
PreviousNext
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Implications of the glycation gap for mechanism of risk prediction

When estimating long-term glycemic control, A1C is considered the gold standard (1–3), but patients with seemingly equivalent A1C differ in their risk for microvascular complications (4,5). Recently, the “glycation gap,” defined as the difference between the measured A1C and that which would be predicted from another measure of glycemic control, fructosamine, has been proposed as a means of identifying sources of variance in the apparent risk (6). Because hemoglobin is an intracellular protein and fructosamine reflects extracellular proteins, the glycation gap could result from differences between the ambient glucose concentrations or rates of glycation in the intracellular and extracellular compartments or interindividual differences in the turnover/metabolism of underlying proteins (6). In this study, we sought to determine whether there are differences in the relationship of GHb to fructosamine in diabetic subjects who do or do not develop retinopathy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—

The present study was completed in collaboration with the Wisconsin Diabetes Registry Study (WDRS), an incident type 1 diabetes cohort followed for complications over 4–14 years’ duration. The WDRS has been described previously (7). New fructosamine testing was completed in 86 subjects who were identified among 290 with fundus photographs at 9 years. Patients with retinopathy (n = 13), patients with missing photographs indicating no retinopathy (n = 38) at 4 years or missing GHb or random glucose at 4 and/or 9 years (n = 118), and patients having insufficient plasma for testing fructosamine at the 4-year exam (n = 35) were excluded. Of the 86 eligible patients, 2 with fructosamine concentrations >1,000 μmol/l were omitted. Of the 84 patients included, 42 had retinopathy at 9 years.

Retinal status was assessed using a severity scale developed for the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (8,9). Total GHb was determined using microcolumn affinity chromatography within 7 days of sample collection (Isolab Glycaffin; Isolab, Akron, OH; intra-assay coefficient of variation [CV] 1.1%) (10). Fructosamine assays used a Roche kit Hitachi autoanalyzer; determinations were performed by single assay of samples stored at −80°C for intervals of 9–14 years (intra-assay CV 1.2%). The mean CV of a panel of seven control samples measured over a 35-month period was 4% (range 2–6).

The glycation gap was computed as previously described (6). A bootstrap technique was used to derive the parameter estimates that would be obtained from an independent reference sample drawn from the same population. The Nagelkerke R2 was used to determine the relative contribution of predictor variables to the model (11).

RESULTS—

The groups did not differ in age, sex, race, or duration of diabetes (Table 1). GHb, fructosamine, and random glucose measured at the 4-year exam were significantly higher in those who subsequently developed retinopathy than in those who did not; the difference in GHb has been previously reported (7). Five subjects who developed retinopathy and two who did not met criteria for microalbuminuria at 4 years (P = 0.23), but mean urinary albumin excretion was normal in both groups (data not shown). There is a significant difference in the glycation gap between those with and without subsequent retinopathy; the mean glycation gap is positive in those with retinopathy but negative in those without. Stated differently, the two groups were not symmetrically distributed about the regression line of GHb on fructosamine (supplemental Fig. 1, available in an online appendix at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1465), as would be predicted if glycemic control were the sole mediator of risk prediction by either GHb or fructosamine. Altogether, 21 of the affected and 13 of the unaffected patients were above the line, while 21 of the affected and 29 of the unaffected patients were below the line (suppl. Fig. 1; χ2 P = 0.014).

The R2 for the regression of GHb on fructosamine was 0.33, suggesting that the glycation gap accounted for 67% of the variance in GHb (suppl. Fig. 1). Models predicting retinopathy were based on the notion that GHb is an independent predictor of retinopathy that should equate in predictive accuracy to a model containing both glycation gap and fructosamine (i.e., the two components of GHb). Indeed, the accuracy of predictions for GHb was indistinguishable from the model combining fructosamine and glycation gap (C-statistic [a measure of the accuracy of predictions] for GHb alone: 0.726 [95% CI 0.618–0.835]; C-statistic for fructosamine + glycation gap: 0.747 [0.643–0.851]). However, the ratio of the Nagelkerke R2 for the model containing glycation gap only to that containing both fructosamine and glycation gap suggests that the glycation gap accounts for 39% of the ability of GHb to predict retinopathy (Table 1).

CONCLUSIONS—

The probability of developing retinopathy increased with increasing GHb and with another measure of glycemic control, fructosamine. There was insufficient microalbuminuria at 4 years to account for any difference in serum fructosamine between the groups (12). Fructosamine contributed about three-fifths to the predictive power of GHb, while the glycation gap contributed about two-fifths, suggesting that in this sample a substantial portion of the ability of GHb to predict diabetic retinopathy is due to properties it does not share in common with an alternative measure of glycemic control.

This attribute of the glycation gap representing a fraction of the variance in GHb independent of glycemic control (6) and its heritability (13,14) support the notion that the ability of GHb to predict diabetes complications may not reside solely in its ability to reflect average glycemic control. Though it is possible that interindividual differences in protein turnover would contribute, it is more likely that either the glucose to which the proteins are exposed or the rate of glycation/deglycation (15) accounts for the difference in glycation gap between affected and unaffected individuals. Aside from intracellular concentration differences, largely determined by the facilitative glucose transporter GLUT1 (16), there could be factors, including genetic ones, inside the cell affecting the rate of either nonenzymatic glycation or enzymatic deglycation (17,18). Previous observations that GHb but not fructosamine is in part genetically determined (13) support this possibility.

It is important to stress that the glycation gap, similar to the “hemoglobin glycation index (HGI)” (19), is not independent of GHb (20,21); since the glycation gap is computed as the difference between a measured and a predicted A1C (or in this case GHb), independence is impossible. However, the glycation gap is not dependent on glycemic control, as indicated by the lack of correlation with fructosamine. Thus, the value of either the glycation gap (6) or the HGI (22) is that they represent a means of estimating the sources of variability in A1C that are shared in common with another measure of glycemic control and those that are unshared and therefore potentially due to other mechanisms (23,24). A1C is not synonymous with glycemic control, and it may be that some of the factors altering A1C apart from glycemic control also alter risk of diabetes complications, which is what is captured in the risk prediction of glycation gap.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1—

Mean ± SD or frequency (%) for pertinent 4-year exam data with significance of the differences and logistic regression analysis

Acknowledgments

This project was supported by National Institutes of Health Grants R01 DK63088, M01 RR08084, and R01 DK36904 and a grant from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

We acknowledge helpful discussions with Dr. Mari Palta.

Footnotes

  • Published ahead of print at http://care.diabetesjournals.org on 27 September 2007. DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1465.

    Additional information for this article can be found in an online appendix at http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc07-1465.

    A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.

    The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked “advertisement” in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted September 25, 2007.
    • Received July 29, 2007.
  • DIABETES CARE

References

  1. ↵
    Nathan DM, Cleary PA, Backlund JY, Genuth SM, Lachin JM, Orchard TJ, Raskin P, Zinman B: Intensive diabetes treatment and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 353:2643–2653, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. UKPDS Study Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet 352:837–853, 1998
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. ↵
    The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes: Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. N Engl J Med 329:977–986, 1993
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. ↵
    Nathan DM, Singer DE, Hurxthal K, Goodson JD: The clinical information value of the glycosylated hemoglobin assay. N Engl J Med 310:341–346, 1984
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    Kilpatrick ES: HbA1c measurement. J Clin Pathol 57:344–345, 2004
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Cohen RM, Holmes YR, Chenier TC, Joiner CH: Discordance between HbA1c and fructosamine: evidence for a glycosylation gap and its relation to diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Care 26:163–167, 2003
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    LeCaire TJ, Palta M, Zhang H, Allen C, Klein R, D'Alessio D: Lower-than-expected prevalence and severity of retinopathy in an incident cohort followed during the first 4–14 years of type 1 diabetes: the Wisconsin Diabetes Registry Study. Am J Epidemiol 164:143–150, 2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Klein R, Palta M, Allen C, Shen G, Han DP, D'Alessio DJ: Incidence of retinopathy and associated risk factors from time of diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes. Arch Ophthalmol 115:351–356, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Klein R, Klein BE, Moss SE, Davis MD, DeMets DL: The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy. III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years. Arch Ophthalmol 102:527–532, 1984
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  10. ↵
    Palta M, Shen G, Allen C, Klein R, D'Alessio D: Longitudinal patterns of glycemic control and diabetes care from diagnosis in a population-based cohort with type 1 diabetes: the Wisconsin Diabetes Registry. Am J Epidemiol 144:954–961, 1996
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Nagelkerke NJ: A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 78:691–692, 2007
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    Parving HH, Rossing N, Sander E: Increased metabolic turnover rate and transcapillary escape rate of albumin in long-term juvenile diabetics. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 35:59–66, 1975
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    Cohen RM, Snieder H, Lindsell CJ, Beyan H, Hawa MI, Blinko S, Edwards R, Spector TD, Leslie RD: Evidence for independent heritability of the glycation gap (glycosylation gap) fraction of HbA1c in nondiabetic twins. Diabetes Care 29:1739–1743, 2006
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Snieder H, Sawtell PA, Ross L, Walker J, Spector TD, Leslie RD: HbA1c levels are genetically determined even in type 1 diabetes: evidence from healthy and diabetic twins. Diabetes 50:2858–2863, 2001
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Delpierre G, Collard F, Fortpied J, Van SE: Fructosamine 3-kinase is involved in an intracellular deglycation pathway in human erythrocytes. Biochem J 365:801–808, 2002
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  16. ↵
    Wood IS, Trayhurn P: Glucose transporters (GLUT and SGLT): expanded families of sugar transport proteins. Br J Nutr 89:3–9, 2003
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  17. ↵
    Gould BJ, Davie SJ, Yudkin JS: Investigation of the mechanism underlying the variability of glycated haemoglobin in non-diabetic subjects not related to glycaemia. Clin Chim Acta 260:49–64, 1997
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    Jeffcoate SL: Diabetes control and complications: the role of glycated haemoglobin, 25 years on. Diabet Med 21:657–665, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. ↵
    Chalew SA, McCarter RJ, Thomas J, Thomson JL, Hempe JM: A comparison of the glycosylation gap and hemoglobin glycation index in patients with diabetes. J Diabetes Complications 19:218–222, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Genuth S, Lachin JM, Nathan DM: Biological variation in HbA1c predicts risk of retinopathy and nephropathy in type 1 diabetes: response to McCarter et al. (Letter). Diabetes Care 28:233–235, 2005
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    Lachin JM, Genuth S, Nathan DM, Rutledge BN: The hemoglobin glycation index is not an independent predictor of the risk of microvascular complications in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Diabetes 56:1913–1921, 2007
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    Hempe JM, Gomez R, McCarter RJ Jr., Chalew SA: High and low hemoglobin glycation phenotypes in type 1 diabetes: a challenge for interpretation of glycemic control. J Diabetes Complications 16:313–320, 2002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    Virtue MA, Furne JK, Nuttall FQ, Levitt MD: Relationship between GHb concentration and erythrocyte survival determined from breath carbon monoxide concentration. Diabetes Care 27:931–935, 2004
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  24. ↵
    Connor JR, Beisswenger PJ, Szwergold BS: Some clues as to regulation, expression, function and distribution of fructosamine-3-kinase and fructosamine-3-kinase-related protein. Ann NY Acad Sci 1043:824–836, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Diabetes Care: 31 (1)

In this Issue

January 2008, 31(1)
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author
Sign up to receive current issue alerts
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about Diabetes Care.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Relationship of Prospective GHb to Glycated Serum Proteins in Incident Diabetic Retinopathy
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Diabetes Care
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Diabetes Care web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Relationship of Prospective GHb to Glycated Serum Proteins in Incident Diabetic Retinopathy
Robert M. Cohen, Tamara J. LeCaire, Christopher J. Lindsell, Eric P. Smith, Donn J. D'Alessio
Diabetes Care Jan 2008, 31 (1) 151-153; DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1465

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Add to Selected Citations
Share

Relationship of Prospective GHb to Glycated Serum Proteins in Incident Diabetic Retinopathy
Robert M. Cohen, Tamara J. LeCaire, Christopher J. Lindsell, Eric P. Smith, Donn J. D'Alessio
Diabetes Care Jan 2008, 31 (1) 151-153; DOI: 10.2337/dc07-1465
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—
    • RESULTS—
    • CONCLUSIONS—
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Suppl Material
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Insulin Resistance Is Associated With Enhanced Brain Glucose Uptake During Euglycemic Hyperinsulinemia: A Large-Scale PET Cohort
  • Restoration of Hypoglycemia Awareness Alters Brain Activity in Type 1 Diabetes
  • Processes Underlying Glycemic Deterioration in Type 2 Diabetes: An IMI DIRECT Study
Show more Pathophysiology/Complications

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Current Issue
  • Standards of Care Guidelines
  • Online Ahead of Print
  • Archives
  • Submit
  • Subscribe
  • Email Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

More Information

  • About the Journal
  • Instructions for Authors
  • Journal Policies
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Advertising
  • Privacy Policy: ADA Journals
  • Copyright Notice/Public Access Policy
  • Contact Us

Other ADA Resources

  • Diabetes
  • Clinical Diabetes
  • Diabetes Spectrum
  • Scientific Sessions Abstracts
  • Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes
  • BMJ Open - Diabetes Research & Care
  • Professional Books
  • Diabetes Forecast

 

  • DiabetesJournals.org
  • Diabetes Core Update
  • ADA's DiabetesPro
  • ADA Member Directory
  • Diabetes.org

© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association. Diabetes Care Print ISSN: 0149-5992, Online ISSN: 1935-5548.