Predictive Ability of Hypertriglyceridemic Waist, Hypertriglyceridemic Waist-to-Height Ratio, and Waist-to-Hip Ratio for Cardiometabolic Risk Factors Clustering Screening among Chinese Children and Adolescents.

Objective: Hypertriglyceridemic waist (HW), hypertriglyceridemic waist-to-height ratio (HWHtR), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) have been shown to be indicators of cardiometabolic risk factors. However, it is not clear which indicator is more suitable for children and adolescents. We aimed to investigate the relationship between HW, HWHtR, WHR, and cardiovascular risk factors clustering to determine the best screening tools for cardiometabolic risk in children and adolescents. Methods: This was a national cross-sectional study. Anthropometric and biochemical variables were assessed in approximately 70,000 participants aged 6-18 years from seven provinces in China. Demographics, physical activity, dietary intake, and family history of chronic diseases were obtained through questionnaires. ANOVA, χ 2 and logistic regression analysis was conducted. Results: A significant sex difference was observed for HWHtR and WHR, but not for HW phenotype. The risk of cardiometabolic health risk factor clustering with HW phenotype or the HWHtR phenotype was significantly higher than that with the non-HW or non-HWHtR phenotypes among children and adolescents (HW: OR = 12.22, 95% CI: 9.54-15.67; HWHtR: OR = 9.70, 95% CI: 6.93-13.58). Compared with the HW and HWHtR phenotypes, the association between risk of cardiometabolic health risk factors (CHRF) clustering and high WHR was much weaker and not significant (WHR: OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.97-1.34). Conclusion: Compared with HWHtR and WHR, the HW phenotype is a more convenient indicator withhigher applicability to screen children and adolescents for cardiovascular risk factors.

Mutation and methylation of hMLH1 in gastric carcinomas with microsatellite instability.

AIM: To appraise the correlation of mutation and methylation of hMSH1 with microsatellite instability (MSI) in gastric cancers. METHODS: Mutation of hMLH1 was detected by Two-dimensional electrophoresis (Two-D) and DNA sequencing; Methylation of hMLH1 promoter was measured with methylation-specific PCR; MSI was analyzed by PCR-based methods. RESULTS: Sixty-eight cases of sporadic gastric carcinoma were studied for mutation and methylation of hMLH1 promoter and MSI. Three mutations were found, two of them were caused by a single bp substitution and one was caused by a 2 bp substitution, which displayed similar Two-D band pattern. Methylation of hMLH1 promoter was detected in 11(16.2 %) gastric cancer. By using five MSI markers, MSI in at least one locus was detected in 17/68(25 %) of the tumors analyzed. Three hMLH1 mutations were all detected in MSI-H (>=2 loci, n=8), but no mutation was found in MSI-L (only one locus, n=9) or MSS (tumor lacking MSI or stable, n=51). Methylation frequency of hMLH1 in MSI-H (87.5 %, 7/8) was significantly higher than that in MSI-L (11.1 %, 1/9) or MSS (5.9 %, 3/51) (P<0.01-0.001), but no difference was found between MSI-L and MSS (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Both mutation and methylation of hMLH1 are involved in the MSI pathway but not related to the LOH pathway in gastric carcinogenesis.