Abstract
We explored the relation between age at menarche, parity and age at natural menopause with 249 metabolic traits, measured using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), in up to 65,487 UK Biobank women using multivariable regression (MV), Mendelian randomization (MR) and a male negative control (parity only). Older age of menarche was related to a less atherogenic metabolic profile in MV and MR, which was largely attenuated when accounting for adult body mass index. In MV, higher parity related to complex changes in lipoprotein-related traits; these were not observed in male negative controls and were imprecisely estimated in MR. In MV and MR, older age at natural menopause was related to lower concentrations of inflammation markers, but inconsistent results were observed for LDL-related traits due to chronological age-specific effects. Our findings support a role of reproductive traits on later life metabolic profile and provide insights into identifying novel markers for the prevention of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in women.
What is new?
Markers of women’s reproductive health are associated with several common chronic conditions. Whilst some attempts have been made to explore the extent to which these associations are causal, metabolites could act as mediators of the relationship between reproductive markers and chronic diseases.
Older age of menarche was related to a less atherogenic metabolic profile in multivariable regression and Mendelian randomization, however, this was largely attenuated when accounting for adult body mass index.
In multivariable regression, higher parity related to complex changes in lipoprotein-related traits. Whilst these were not observed in male negative controls, suggesting a potential causal effect in females, they were not replicated in the Mendelian randomization, possibly due to imprecise estimates.
Older age at natural menopause was related to lower concentrations of inflammation markers in both multivariable regression and Mendelian randomization. Consistent results were observed for LDL-related traits when stratified by chronological age.
Implications
Given that the age at menarche results were largely attenuated to the null when accounting for adult BMI, it is likely that age at menarche itself may not causally relate to the metabolic profile.
These results, particularly for parity and age at menopause, could contribute to identifying novel markers for the prevention of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in women and/or methods for accurate risk prediction. For example, consistent with other studies, higher parity was associated with unfavourable (e.g. higher number of particles and lipid content in VLDL and higher glycine) changes in the metabolic profile. Similarly, older age at menopause was related to higher lipid content in HDL particles and lower systemic inflammation, as proxied by GlycA.
Introduction
Markers of women’s reproductive health, such as age at menarche, parity and age at menopause, have been associated with several common chronic conditions, including cardiometabolic diseases 1-6 and breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer 7-12. Some attempts have been made to explore the extent to which these associations are causal, as opposed to explained by residual confounding, using approaches such as Mendelian randomization (MR) and negative control designs, which are less prone to bias by key confounders from conventional observational studies. MR studies suggest a direct positive effect of age at menarche on breast cancer and an indirect inverse effect via body mass index (BMI) 13, as well as a possible bidirectional relationship between age at menarche and BMI 13,14. MR also supports a protective effect of older age at first birth on type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases 15 and lower mean levels of BMI, fasting insulin and triglycerides in women and men 16, while a partner negative control study provides some evidence of a ‘J-shaped’ effect of parity on coronary heart disease risk 5. In addition, evidence from MR studies indicate that older age at menopause increases the risk of breast, endometrial and ovarian cancer, reduces the risk of bone fractures and type 2 diabetes, and do not substantially affect BMI or cardiovascular diseases risk 17.
Metabolites could act as mediators of the relationship of reproductive markers, and related hormonal changes, with chronic diseases 18-20. Determining the effect of women’s reproductive markers on multiple metabolites would be the first step to exploring this and could provide crucial insights into mechanisms underlying women’s long-term health. We have previously shown marked changes in metabolites, such as lipids, fatty acids, amino acids and inflammatory markers during pregnancy 20, through the menopausal transition 21, and among women on hormonal contraceptives containing estrogen 22. Many of these same metabolic measures are also related to cardiovascular diseases 19 and some cancers 23-26. The aim of this paper is to explore the extent to which women’s reproductive markers have a causal effect on 249 metabolic measures (covering lipids, fatty acids, amino acids, glycolysis, ketone bodies and an inflammatory marker). We focus on three reproductive traits that represent key events in women’s reproductive lives: (i) age at menarche, a marker of puberty timing, (ii) parity, a marker of repeated exposure to the physiological challenges of pregnancy, and (iii) age at menopause, a marker of reproductive aging. We explore the causal relationships between reproductive markers and metabolic measures by triangulating evidence 27 across multivariable regression, a negative control design (for parity only), and MR (Figure 1). Given each of these approaches has unique strengths and limitations, results that agree across them are less likely to be spurious 27.
Results
We used data from 65,699 UK Biobank female participants with 249 metabolic measures quantified by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Self-reported age at menarche (in years), parity (in number of live born children) and age at menopause (in years) were reported at baseline when participants mean age was 56 years old (range: 37 to 73). NMR metabolites were measured on blood samples taken at baseline or first repeat assessment (more details in methods). The characteristics of these participants are shown in Table 1 (and split by each of our reproductive markers (categorized) in Supplementary Tables 1-3). At recruitment (baseline) women were aged (mean) 56 (SD=8.0) years, 21% drank three or four times a week and 40% were previous/currents smokers. 81% of women had one or more live births whilst the mean age of menarche was 13 years (SD=1.3). 59% (37, 428) women reported they went through a natural menopause with a mean age of menopause of 49.7 years (SD=5.1). Supplementary Table 4 shows the distribution of NMR metabolic measures among UK Biobank females. The proportion of women with missing data across metabolic measures ranged from 0.3% to 6.1%.
We used three approaches relying on different assumptions to explore the causal role of women’s reproductive markers on later life metabolic profile. For the first approach (‘multivariable regression’), we used linear regression models to estimate the association of reproductive markers with metabolic measures after adjusting for age at baseline, education and body composition at age 10. In sensitivity analyses, for the 55 non-derived metabolites, we categorised age at menarche, parity and age at natural menopause, tested for a linear trend and, where there was evidence of non-linearity, fit restricted cubic splines. For the second approach (‘negative control design’ – only applicable for parity), we used linear regression models to test whether number of live born children in men was associated with their metabolic measures; given men do not experience the repeated physiological stress of pregnancy, but are likely to demonstrate the same associations of confounders (eg. socioeconomic position, BMI, smoking) with number of live births, similar associations of number of live births with metabolic measures between men and women would indicate bias (e.g. due to confounding) rather than a causal effect of being exposed to the physiological stress of pregnancy on women’s metabolic profile. For the third approach (‘MR’), we selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as genetic instruments for each reproductive marker from previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and performed two-sample MR to estimate the effect of reproductive markers on metabolic measures using the standard inverse variance weighted (IVW) method. For both multivariable and MR analyses, we adopted P-value < 0.00093, which accounts for the approximate number of independent tests as detailed in ‘Statistical analyses’.
Age at menarche
In the main multivariable regression analyses (adjusting for age at baseline, education and body composition at age 10), older age at menarche was associated with higher concentration of glutamine, glycine, albumin, apolipoprotein A1, cholines, phosphatidylcholines, and sphingomyelins but lower concentration of alanine, branched-chain amino acids (isoleucine, leucine and valine), aromatic amino acids (phenylalanine and tyrosine), fatty acids (monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), and saturated fatty acids (SFA)), glycolysis-related metabolites (glucose, lactate, pyruvate), acetoacetate, and glycoprotein acetyls (GlycA) (P < 0.00093) (Figure 2A and Supplementary Table 5). Older age at menarche was also associated with numerous lipoprotein-related traits at P < 0.00093, particularly with higher number of particles, size, and lipid content in high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and lower number of particles, size, and lipid content in very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) (Figure 2A). The associations of age at menarche with HDL-related traits were mostly due to larger HDL subclasses (i.e. medium, large and very large particles), while associations with VLDL-related traits were observed across VLDL subclasses (Supplementary Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 5). In sensitivity analyses with further adjustments for BMI, smoking and alcohol status at baseline, findings for an association of older age at menarche were largely or completely attenuated towards the null for most metabolic measures with few exceptions, such as glutamine, glycine, omega-3 PUFA, pyruvate, lactate, and acetoacetate (Supplementary Figure 2). There was evidence of non-linearity between categories of age at menarche (<13, 13-14, >14 years) and 17 metabolites (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Figure 3). Restricted cubic spline models (with 3 knots at ages 11, 13, and 15 years) generally showed an increase in albumin, apolipoprotein A1, cholines, DHA, LA, and phosphatidylcholines with older age at menarche until approximately age 13, in line with our linear association, and then began to flatten and/or decrease (Supplementary Table 7 and Supplementary Figure 4). Whilst older age at menarche was related to an increase in GlycA until ∼13 years and then began to flatten.
For the MR analyses, we selected 389 SNPs as instruments for age at menarche, which explained 7.4% of its phenotypic variance with a corresponding mean F statistic of 63 (Supplementary Table 8). Overall, MR estimates using IVW were in agreement with multivariable regression estimates in direction and magnitude (Figures 2A and Supplementary Figure 1); however, due to the higher degree of uncertainty for IVW estimates, no result passed our threshold for multiple testing correction (P < 0.00093). Following reviewer’s comments, we repeated the IVW analyses for a larger sample of women (N=216,514-241,244) for the eight biomarkers assayed using clinical chemistry techniques that matched measures in the NMR metabolomics platform — i.e. albumin, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, glucose, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. These results provided further evidence of older age at menarche being related to higher albumin, apolipoprotein A1, HDL-cholesterol, and lower triglycerides (P < 0.00093) (Figure 3). Given the a priori evidence of bidirectional effects between age at menarche and BMI, we also performed multivariable IVW accounting for adult BMI to estimate the direct effects of age at menarche on metabolic measures, which resulted in estimates partly or completely attenuated to the null for most metabolic measures with few exceptions, such as glutamine and glycine (Supplementary Figure 5 and 6).
Parity
In the main multivariable regression analyses (adjusting for age at baseline, education and body composition at age 10), higher parity was related to higher concentrations of glycine and leucine, but lower concentrations of histidine, fatty acids (docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), Omega 3, Omega 6 PUFA), pyruvate, ketone bodies (acetate, acetoacetate, acetone and β-hydroxybutyrate), and apolipoprotein A1 (P < 0.00093) (Figures 2B and Supplementary Table 9). Higher parity was also associated with numerous lipoprotein-related measures at P < 0.00093, particularly with lower and higher number of particles, size, and lipid content for HDL and VLDL, respectively, as well as lower size of LDL particles (Figure 2B). The associations of parity with lipoprotein-related measures were observed across most VLDL and HDL subclasses, whereas associations with LDL-related measures were mostly driven by larger LDL particles (Supplementary Figure 7 and Supplementary Table 9). In sensitivity analyses with further adjustments for BMI, smoking and alcohol status at baseline, higher parity associations were consistent for glycine, histidine, fatty acids, pyruvate, ketone bodies, apolipoprotein A1, and partly attenuated towards the null for VLDL- and HDL-related traits (Supplementary Figure 8). There was some evidence of non-linearity between parity (0,1,2,3+) and 28 metabolites (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Figure 9). However, restricted cubic spline models (with knots at 1, 2, and 3) generally showed monotonic relationships for those with no to four pregnancies, consistent with the main analysis models (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Figure 10).
We used males as a negative control since men cannot experience the effects of being exposed to the stress test of pregnancy. Therefore, similar results between men and women would be indicative of bias, such as due to confounding by sociodemographic (e.g. education attainment) and biological (e.g. infertility) factors, rather than by an effect of repeated exposure to pregnancy. When using number of children in males as a negative control, we observed that associations for leucine, histidine, pyruvate, and ketone bodies were similar between men and women (i.e. directionally consistent, similar effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals overlapped between male and female estimates). On the other hand, association estimates for fatty acids, apolipoprotein A1, and lipoprotein-related traits were weaker or consistent with the null, and glycine was in opposite direction, in males compared to females (Figure 4). For the MR analyses, we selected 32 SNPs as instruments for parity, which explained 0.2% of its phenotypic variance with a corresponding mean F statistic of 31 (Supplementary Table 8). It is unclear whether estimates from multivariable regression and MR analyses are consistent with each other due to the high level of uncertainty in the latter (Figures 2B and Supplementary Figure 7), which persisted even when using the larger sample of women with selected biomarkers assayed by clinical chemistry (Figure 3).
Age at natural menopause
In the main multivariable regression analyses (adjusting for age at baseline, education and body composition at age 10), older age at menopause was related to higher glycine, PUFA (e.g. DHA and LA), albumin, apolipoprotein B and sphingomyelins, but lower concentration of MUFA, pyruvate, acetoacetate, creatinine and GlycA (P < 0.00093) (Figures 2C and Supplementary Table 11). Older age at menopause was also associated with numerous lipoprotein-related traits at P < 0.00093, particularly with higher number of particles and lipid content in LDL, larger size of HDL particles, and lower size of VLDL particles (Figure 2C). The associations between age at menopause and LDL-related traits were observed across LDL subclasses (i.e. from small to large), whereas associations with HDL-related traits were mostly driven by larger HDL particles (Supplementary Figure 11). In sensitivity analyses with further adjustments for BMI, smoking and alcohol status at baseline, associations between older age at natural menopause and metabolites remained similar, except for associations with HDL-related traits which were partly attenuated (Supplementary Figure 12). There was evidence of non-linearity across 24 metabolites (Supplementary Table 6 and Supplementary Figure 13) in the multivariable regression when menopause was categorised (<49, 49-50, 51-53, >53 years). Restricted cubic spline models (with 4 knots) were generally consistent with the main analysis (assuming a linear association) until age at menopause ∼55 years when most metabolites decreased (Supplementary Table 12 and Supplementary Figure 14).
For the MR analyses, we selected 290 SNPs as instruments for age at natural menopause, which explained 8.2% of its phenotypic variance with a corresponding mean F statistic of 141 (Supplementary Table 8). Estimates from multivariable regression and MR analyses were inconsistent in direction for many metabolic measures (Figure 2C). In particular, in contrast to results from multivariable regression, MR analyses indicated older age at menopause to be related to lower concentration of fatty acids (e.g. LA), albumin, apolipoprotein B, as well as lower number of particles, lipid content and size of LDL across subtypes (from small to large) (Figure 2C and Supplementary Figure 11). For some metabolites, such as GlycA and HDL-related traits, results were consistent in direction between multivariable regression and MR. For alanine, glutamine and glucose, MR analysis suggested older age of menopause to be related to lower circulating metabolite levels, which had not been observed in multivariable regression analysis (Figures 2C and Supplementary Table 11). As expected, there was more uncertainty in MR estimates and only results for glutamine and some LDL- and VLDL-related measures passed the threshold for multiple test correction (P < 0.00093). Repeating the MR analyses in the larger sample of women (N=216,514-241,244) with selected biomarkers assayed by clinical chemistry confirmed that older age at natural menopause was related to lower albumin, LDL-cholesterol, and total cholesterol at P < 0.00093 (Figure 3).
We performed further analyses to investigate reasons underlying discrepant findings between multivariable and MR estimates for some metabolic measures. These analyses were restricted to the eight clinical chemistry biomarkers matching measures in the NMR platform to maximise statistical power since they have been measured in the full UK Biobank sample. First, we hypothesised that discrepant findings were related to differences in the sample used for multivariable regression, which excludes women with missing data on age at menopause (hereafter ‘selected sample’), and two-sample MR, which includes women even if they are missing data on age at natural menopause (hereafter ‘full sample’). To test that, we compared estimates from multivariable regression on the selected sample to MR on both the selected sample and full sample. In agreement with our hypothesis, multivariable regression and MR estimates for LDL-cholesterol and related traits (i.e. apolipoprotein B and total cholesterol) are comparable when restricting to the selected sample. In contrast, for albumin, discrepant results were related to differences between multivariable regression and MR rather than between selected and full sample (Supplementary Figure 15). Second, given women with missing data at age at menopause are typically pre-menopausal and younger, we explored age-stratified multivariable and MR estimates, which revealed a strong effect modification by chronological age on the association of age at menopause with LDL-c and related traits – e.g. older age at menopause is related to substantially lower LDL-cholesterol in younger women (≤ 50 y) (e.g. MV: -0.018 SD, 95%CI: -0.021, -0.015), but slightly higher LDL-cholesterol in older women (> 63 y) (e.g. MV: 0.004 SD, 95%CI: 0.003, 0.006) (Supplementary Figure 15). Differences related to chronological age at baseline were also observed for other biomarkers, such as albumin. This age patterned results were largely similar when excluding women using statins at baseline or with a history of using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (Supplementary Figure 16).
Exploring the plausibility of MR assumptions
We conducted a series of sensitivity analyses to explore the plausibility of key MR assumptions, required for the method to provide a valid test of the presence of a causal effect.
First, we tested whether MR findings are likely to be biased by population stratification, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects of parents using two approaches: (i) performing two-sample MR analyses using (sex-combined) data from a recent within-siblings GWAS, and (ii) conducting two-sample MR on negative control outcomes (i.e. skin colour and skin tanning ability). Two-sample MR estimates for the effect of genetic susceptibility for older age at menarche, parity, and age at natural menopause on five available biomarkers was broadly consistent when estimated among unrelated individuals or between siblings. Results for age at menarche were slightly overestimated for triglycerides and underestimated for glycated haemoglobin in unrelated individuals, while results for a positive relation between age at natural menopause and HDL-cholesterol was supported by analyses between siblings but not among unrelated individuals (Supplementary Figure 17). We did not observe an association of genetically-predicted reproductive markers with skin colour or tanning (Supplementary Table 13). Taken together, these sensitivity analyses indicate that our main MR estimates are unlikely to be substantially biased by population stratification, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects of parents.
Second, we explored the presence of bias due to pleiotropic variants by using MR methods other than IVW: the weighted median estimator and MR-Egger. These methods can provide valid tests for the presence of a causal effect under different (and weaker) assumptions about the nature of the underlying horizontal pleiotropy compared to IVW. Estimates from IVW and weighted median were consistent in direction for most relationships between reproductive markers and metabolic measures. In most instances, estimates from MR-Egger method were uninformative given the high degree of uncertainty (Supplementary Figures 18, 19, 20).
Third, we assessed potential bias due to sample overlap from including UK Biobank individuals in genetic association estimates for both exposures and outcomes. This was achieved by using data from previous GWAS that did not include UK Biobank, available for age at menarche and age at natural menopause, to select SNPs (and genetic associations estimates with exposures) for two-sample MR analyses (Supplementary Table 14). When using SNPs selected from previous GWASes that did not include UK Biobank participants, results for of age at menarche and age at natural menopause were largely consistent, although less precise, compared to estimates from the main analyses using data with overlapping samples (Supplementary Figure 21 and 22).
Discussion
Our findings indicate that reproductive markers across women’s lifespan are associated with distinct metabolic signatures in later life. Age at menarche, parity and age at natural menopause were related to numerous metabolic measures, representing multiple dimensions of metabolism, including amino acids, fatty acids, glucose, ketone bodies, and lipoprotein metabolism (see Summary box for key findings).
Age at menarche
Age at menarche is frequently used as a proxy of puberty onset among females in epidemiological studies 2,28. Our findings for the relation of age at menarche with metabolic measures were broadly concordant between multivariable regression and MR analyses, and were supportive of older puberty onset being related to a less atherogenic metabolic profile among adult women.
Both multivariable regression and MR estimates were markedly attenuated when accounting for adult BMI for most metabolic measures with few exceptions (e.g. glutamine and glycine), suggesting that the effect of age at menarche on adult metabolites are largely explained by adult BMI. There is evidence of a bi-directional relationship between puberty timing and adiposity, where pre-pubertal adiposity influences puberty timing, which in turn influences post-pubertal adiposity 13,28,29. In addition, genetic variants influencing age at menarche are known to influence BMI before and after puberty 28,29.
The complex relationship between puberty timing and adiposity complicates inferences of the effect of age at menarche on the metabolic profile or disease risk in adulthood since the observed associations could reflect adult BMI mediating the effect of early age at menarche on metabolic measures or a confounding path from pre-puberty BMI. A previous one-sample MR study 28 investigating the effect of age at menarche on NMR metabolic measures reported that results were largely attenuated when accounting for BMI at 8 years old, which suggests that the estimated effect of age at menarche on the metabolic profile is largely confounded by pre-pubertal adiposity, though larger MR studies with repeat BMI and metabolic profiles before and after menarche are needed to rule out a potential causal mediated effect. In our study, accounting for self-reported adiposity in childhood in multivariable regression models did not substantially change effect estimates. This discrepancy might be related to residual confounding in our study (e.g. due to higher measurement error in our measure of childhood adiposity) or different age distributions between ours (mean=55 years) and this previous study (mean=18 years).
Parity
Pregnant women undergo marked changes in physiology (e.g. lipid/glucose metabolism, adiposity, vascular function, hormone levels, and inflammatory response) and lifestyle (e.g. diet and physical activity 30), most of which return to their pre-pregnancy state after delivery 20,30. However, there are concerns that some of these changes might persist and accumulate over multiple pregnancies, impacting women’s cardiovascular health in the future, or that pregnancy acts as a stress test, unmasking an underlying high risk for cardiovascular disease 30,31. We used parity as a marker of being exposed to the physiological stress of multiple pregnancies.
In multivariable regression analyses, we found that higher parity, proxied by number of children ever born, was associated with both favorable (e.g. less LDL particles) and unfavorable (e.g. higher number of particles and lipid content in VLDL) changes in the metabolic profile. Evidence from MR analyses is uncertain due to the high imprecision in effect estimates. Using males as a negative control, we showed that the associations between number of children ever born and metabolic measures among men were largely null for lipoprotein-related measures or in opposite direction for glycine compared to females. This inconsistency between female and male findings reinforces that the metabolic signature associated with parity among females largely reflects a causal effect of parity on the metabolome rather than spurious results due to confounding or selection bias (assuming confounding structures and selection mechanisms are similar between men and women). A possible mechanism is that higher parity leads to greater insulin resistance in pregnant women and subsequently increases the production and secretion of hepatic triglycerides, which can lead to an increased lipid content in VLDL particles.
In line with our findings, other studies have reported that higher parity is related to higher cardiovascular disease risk in women 32. Negative control analyses (comparing associations of number of children in women and men) have been conducted previously in two UK cohorts, with one suggesting that associations with lipids and body composition in women may be due to confounding (as associations are similar in women and men) 33,34 and the second, the largest of these studies to date, and the only one to look at disease end points, finding evidence of a stronger association for risk factors and coronary heart disease in women than men suggesting parity itself has some influence on cardiovascular disease risk 5, Furthermore, studies in women only that are able to control for pre-pregnancy measures, suggest pregnancy and parity have a potentially lasting effect on adverse lipid profiles 35,36.
Age at natural menopause
Previous conventional observational studies suggested older age at natural menopause to be associated with lower risk of cardiometabolic diseases 37 over and above the underlying age trajectory 21,38. In our study, estimates for VLDL- and LDL-related traits were inconsistent between multivariable regressions and MR; the former suggests older age at menopause to be related to a more atherogenic profile, while the latter indicates the opposite. On the other hand, both multivariable regression and MR estimates suggested older age at menopause to be related to higher lipid content in HDL particles and lower systemic inflammation, as proxied by GlycA. Consistent with Auro et al 39, a recent multivariable analysis of 218 Finnish women going through the menopause transition found that menopause was similarly associated with a higher lipid content in HDL particles and lower systemic inflammation 40. Whilst a recent longitudinal study of up to 3892 women with up to 12 CVD risk factors measured as they went through the menopausal transitional also found higher HDL and non-HDL associations, stronger effects of chronological rather than reproductive aging were observed 41.
Findings from our multivariable regression analyses for age at natural menopause should be interpreted with caution given 40% of women were excluded from these analyses as they had not experienced a natural menopause and 7% of the women had experienced menopause less than two years before study recruitment (when blood samples for NMR metabolomics were collected). In follow-up analyses, we have shown that discrepancy in findings between multivariable and MR for LDL-related traits were related to the exclusion of younger pre-menopausal women in multivariable regression. In addition, age-stratified analyses revealed that age at menopause is related to lower LDL-cholesterol in younger women but slightly higher LDL-cholesterol in older women. These results did not seem to be explained by higher intake of statins or HRT among older women, although such analyses should be interpreted with caution given the potential for collider stratification bias. Previous longitudinal studies indicated that LDL-cholesterol 41 and related traits increase sharply through the menopause transition and early postmenopausal years and then plateau with increasing postmenopausal years 42. In our cross-sectional analyses, we observed a non-linear pattern for several metabolites, such that mean metabolite levels increase linearly with age at menopause until 50-55 years old and then decline. Taken together, we speculate that these findings explain the pattern by chronological age in the association between timing of menopause and LDL-related traits. However, larger longitudinal studies with longer follow-up are needed to tease apart the complex nature, and possible time-varying, effect of reproductive aging on the metabolome.
The largest two-sample MR analysis to date indicate that older age at menopause is related to lower risk of type 2 diabetes in females, but no difference in risk of cardiovascular disease or dyslipidemia (data combining males and females) 43. This is in agreement with our analyses suggesting older age at natural menopause is related to lower glucose, and with evidence from randomized controlled trials of estrogen therapy pointing to a protective effect on type 2 diabetes but no change in risk of cardiovascular diseases 44-46. The mechanisms underlying the putative protective effect of older menopause on the risk of metabolic diseases in MR studies is unclear, but might reflect an effect of prolonged exposure to sex hormones or of slower cell aging, given genetic variants associated with age at natural menopause are highly enriched for genes in DNA damage response pathways 43,47. The consistent results between MR of age at menopause and randomized controlled trials of estrogen therapy for type 2 diabetes indicates that prolonged exposure to sex hormones is likely to be involved. Moreover, the lipid metabolism is regulated by estrogen, meaning that lower levels of estrogen during menopause can cause an increase in lipids, particularly LDL, HDL, and triglycerides.
Strengths and limitations
To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study to examine the long-term impact of key events in reproductive life on the multiple metabolic measures in women. The use of large-scale metabolomics data and the integration of multiple analytical approaches are key strengths of our study as these allowed us to strengthen the inference of the causal impact of these reproductive markers on the metabolic health of females.
It is important to note that the validity of our findings rely on the plausibility of the assumptions underlying each analytical approach. For multivariable regression, we cannot exclude the possibility of bias due to residual confounding, especially given we were unable to adjust for key confounders in multivariable regression as measures of these were not available at or before the exposure to reproductive factors. For the use of negative controls, we rely on the unverifiable assumption that residual confounding and selection bias is similar in females and males analyses. It is plausible that factors relating to metabolites, such as age, ethnicity, socioeconomic position, and BMI, relate similarly to number of children in females and males and hence that confounding structures are similar. For MR, we have conducted extensive sensitivity analyses supporting the validity of our results; however, we cannot rule out the possibility of bias due to violations of the core instrumental variable assumptions. In addition, MR analyses for parity was uninformative given the low proportion of phenotypic variance explained by the genetic instruments.
When assessing non-linearity, our multivariable regression results were generally consistent between the main analysis model (assuming a linear relationship) and categories for most metabolites. For metabolites that showed evidence of non-linearity, many seemed to plateau and decrease with older ages of menarche and menopause and similarly with higher parity (however, this was also where we had the least amount of data, which could be driving some of the non-linearity). We were unable to fit non-linear associations in an MR framework given this would require much larger sample sizes; future studies with larger sample sizes should be better powered to examine potential non-linear effects using MR and contrast those found in the multivariable regression.
Whilst some key sources of bias may remain in each method, a key strength of our study is exploring and focusing on results that are consistent across the different methods. As the sources of bias differ between the methods causal inference is strengthened where there is consistency, as we see for example in associations between multivariable regression and MR for age at menarche, multivariable regression and negative control analyses for parity and multivariable regression and MR for age at natural menopause in relation to HDL-related measures and GlycA (but not LDL-related and other measures).
Across all analytical approaches, we cannot discard the presence of selection biases from using UK Biobank data given the low recruitment rate of the study (5%) and inclusion of healthier/wealthier individuals compared to the general UK population 48. In addition, the metabolic traits measured by the NMR metabolomics platform cover a limited set of metabolic pathways49, and, therefore, future studies including data from more sensitive metabolomics techniques, such as mass spectrometry, may improve coverage of the metabolome and provide insights into additional biological processes related to reproductive events. Triangulating results across different methods is useful for causal inference and where there are discrepant results it is important to explore these. We have found that the discrepant results between MR and multivariable regression for the association of age at menopause with some of the metabolites (notably LDL-c and related metabolites) are due to the exclusion of women with missing data on age at menopause in multivariable regression and a potential effect modification by chronological age in the association between age at menopause and some metabolic measures. However, we acknowledge we lack power to fully explore the mechanisms for this given the current number of UK Biobank participants with NMR data.
Conclusions
Overall, older age at menarche/menopause were related to a more favorable metabolic profile, while a mixed pattern was observed for higher parity. Evidence supporting a relation between later pubertal timing and a less atherogenic metabolic profile was largely explained by adult BMI, while findings supporting a relation between slower reproductive aging and a less atherogenic metabolic profile was mostly observed among younger women. These results could contribute to identifying novel markers for the prevention of adverse cardiometabolic outcomes in women and/or methods for accurate risk prediction.
Methods
Study participants
UK Biobank is a population-based cohort consisting of approximately 500,000 men and women recruited between 2006 and 2010 from across the UK (age range at recruitment: 38 years to 73 years old) 50. UK Biobank participants have provided a range of information via questionnaires and interviews, including on sociodemographic, lifestyle, health, and reproductive factors; as well as biological samples and physical measures (data available at www.ukbiobank.ac.uk). A subset of approximately 20,000 were selected for repeat assessment between 2012 and 2013. A full description of the study design, participants and quality control (QC) methods have been described in detail previously 51. UK Biobank received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference for UK Biobank is 11/NW/0382). The current work was approved under UK Biobank Project 30418 and 81499.
Reproductive traits
Women were asked a detailed set of questions about their reproductive health via a self-reported questionnaire. Parity was based on the number of live births reported whilst in men number of children were reported. Age at menarche and age at natural menopause were reported in years. Age at natural menopause therefore excluded women who had not yet gone through the menopause or who had a surgical menopause. Those who had not gone through a natural menopause (N=25,70) had either (i) not yet gone through the menopause (15,418, 60%) (ii) had a surgical menopause or other (10,322, 40%) (Table 1, Supplementary Table 3).
NMR metabolic measures
Metabolic traits were measured using a targeted high-throughput NMR metabolomics (Nightingale Health Ltd; biomarker quantification version 2020)52. This platform provides simultaneous quantification of 249 metabolic measures, consisting of concentrations of 165 metabolic measures and 84 derived ratios, encompassing routine lipids, lipoprotein subclass profiling (including lipid composition within 14 subclasses), fatty acid composition, and various low-molecular weight metabolites such as amino acids, ketone bodies and glycolysis metabolites. Technical details and epidemiological applications have been previously reviewed 18,53. Pre-release data from a random subset of 126,846 non-fasting plasma samples collected at baseline or first repeat assessment were made available to early access analysts. 121,577 samples were retained for analyses after removing duplicates and observations not passing quality control (QC) (i.e. sample QC flag “Low protein”, biomarker QC flag “Technical error”, or samples with insufficient material). All metabolic measures were standardised and normalised prior to analyses using rank-based inverse normal transformation.
Clinical chemistry measures
We used data on the eight biomarkers assayed using clinical chemistry techniques, as previously described 54, that matched measures in the NMR metabolomics platform — i.e. albumin, apolipoprotein A1, apolipoprotein B, glucose, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglycerides. These measures are available in most UK Biobank participants and were used in Mendelian randomization analyses, as described under ‘Statistical analyses’, to increase statistical power and check agreement with results from NMR metabolic measures. All biomarkers were standardised and normalised prior to analyses using rank-based inverse normal transformation.
Summary data on genetic associations with metabolic measures
Genotype data was available for 488,377 UK Biobank participants, of which 49,979 were genotyped using the UK BiLEVE array and 438,398 using the UK Biobank axiom array. Pre-imputation QC, phasing and imputation are described elsewhere 55. Genotype imputation was performed using IMPUTE2 algorithms 56 to a reference set combining the UK10K haplotype and HRC reference panels 57. Post-imputation QC was performed as described in the “UK Biobank Genetic Data: MRC-IEU Quality Control” documentation 58. Genetic association data for metabolic measures was generated using the MRC IEU UK Biobank GWAS pipeline 59. Briefly, we restricted the sample to individuals of ‘European’ ancestry as defined by the largest cluster in an in-house k-means cluster analysis performed using the first 4 principal components provided by UK Biobank in the statistical software environment R (n=464,708). Genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) was conducted using linear mixed model (LMM) association method as implemented in BOLT-LMM (v2.3) 60. Population structure was modelled using 143,006 directly genotyped SNPs (MAF > 0.01; genotyping rate > 0.015; Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium p-value < 0.0001 and LD pruning to an r2 threshold of 0.1 using PLINKv2.00). Models were adjusted for genotyping array and fasting time and were restricted to the subsample of women.
Covariables
For multivariable analyses, confounders were defined a priori based on them being known or plausible causal factors for reproductive traits and cardiovascular risk via higher/lower metabolites. A minimal set of adjustments were made in the main multivariable regression analyses as most confounders were not assessed prior to or around when the reproductive traits occurred. Specifically, we adjusted for education as a categorical variable (University, A-levels, O levels (or equivalent) or other), age at baseline and retrospectively reported body size at age 10 (average, thinner, plumper) in all regression analyses. In additional analyses we also partially adjusted for the full set of defined confounders using baseline measurements (mostly after the occurrence of exposures) as correlates of the before exposure measures (see below in statistical analyses).
Statistical analyses
We used multiple approaches (i.e. multivariable regression, negative control and MR) relying on different assumptions to explore the causal role of reproductive traits on later life metabolic profile. All analysis was conducted using Stata16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) or R 4.1.1 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and results presented as differences in means for each metabolic trait in standard deviation (SD) units per 1 child difference for number of children and per 1 year difference for age at menarche and age at menopause, facilitating the comparison of results from different methods.
For both multivariable and MR analyses, we corrected for multiple testing using the Bonferroni method considering 3*18=54 independent tests (P=0.05/54≈0.00093). This was based on the three exposures included in our analyses (i.e. age at menarche, parity, and age at natural menopause) and the 18 independent features explaining over 95% of variance in the highly correlated NMR metabolic measures in our dataset as estimated by principal component analysis 61.
(a) Multivariable regression
In the main analyses we used linear regression, with three sets of models: (1) no adjustments, (2) adjusted for education, age at baseline and body composition at age 10 and (3) model (2) additionally adjusted for baseline variables collected at the first assessment at (mean) age 56 years (SD=8) including BMI, smoking and alcohol status. By adjusting for the baseline variables at the first assessment we can either block the confounding path or create bias if these variables are mediators. If the results change between model (2) and (3) it is hard to distinguish whether its correct adjustment for confounding or whether it is a mediated path. Because of this we considered model (2) to be the best causal estimate and present models (1) and (3) in supplementary material. For age at menarche, education will have been measured after the exposure. However, as it is influenced by parental education, income and occupation (occurring before menarche) unlikely to be determined by age at menarche, we a priori considered a proxy of early life 62. In sensitivity analyses we assessed whether there was a non-linear relationship between each reproductive trait and 55 non-derived metabolites. For ease of presentation, we excluded measures that were derived (eg ratios) or related to lipoprotein subfractions as these are highly correlated with one or more of the 55 non-derived metabolites. We compared the categorised reproductive trait entered into the model as a categorical variable and as a continuous variable using a likelihood ratio test. Age at menarche and age at menopause were categorised into tertiles (<13, 13-14, >14 years) and quartiles (<49, 49-50, 51-53, >53 years), respectively. Parity was categorised as 0, 1, 2, and 3+. Results were plotted against the first reference category and the p-value for linear trend reported. For any metabolites that showed evidence of non-linearity, restricted cubic splines (with either 3, 4, or 5 knots placed at percentiles as suggested by Harrell63 for each reproductive trait) were fit and compared to the main analysis model (assuming a linear association) using AIC (BIC and root mean square error also shown).
(b) Negative control analyses
Negative control analyses aim to emulate a condition that cannot involve the hypothesized causal mechanism but is likely to have similar sources of bias that may have been present in the association of interest 5,27. We used males as negative controls to assess potential biases in the association between parity (proxied by number of live births) and metabolic measures in women. If associations between number of live births and metabolic measures in women reflect a causal effect of parity on women’s metabolic health, one would expect number of live births to be associated with metabolic measures in women but not in men given men do not experience pregnancy. Similar to the multivariable regression analyses, we test the association between number of children (men) and their measured metabolites and present three sets of models: (1) with no adjustments, (2) adjusted for education, age at baseline and retrospectively self-reported body composition at age 10 and (3) model (2) additionally adjusted for baseline variables collected at the first assessment at (mean) age 56 years (SD=8) including BMI, smoking and alcohol status.
(c) Mendelian randomization
We used two-sample MR to explore the effect of older age at menarche, higher parity, and older age at natural menopause on women’s metabolic profile. Publicly available GWAS summary data were used for SNP-reproductive traits associations (sample 1) and UK Biobank summary GWAS data for SNP-metabolite associations (sample 2). This approach does not require all participants to have data on both exposure and outcome, and, therefore, allows us to retain the largest possible sample sizes, meaning that power to detect a causal effect is increased 64.
Selection of genetic instruments
Age at menarche
Genetic instruments were selected from a GWAS of age at menarche, which included 329,345 women of European ancestry (Supplementary Table 14) 65. Linear regression models were used to estimate the association between genetic variants and age at menarche (in years) adjusting for age at study visit and study-specific covariables. For our analyses, we selected the 389 independent SNPs reported by the GWAS to be strongly associated with age at menarche (P-value < 5*10-8) in the discovery metanalyses. Given the age at menarche GWAS included UK Biobank participants (maximum estimated sample overlap: ∼20%), we have also selected an additional set of age at menarche-associated genetic variants (N = 68 SNPs) using data from a previous GWAS that did not including UK Biobank (details in ‘Sensitivity analyses’ below and Supplementary Table 14) 66.
Parity
Genetic instruments were selected from a GWAS of number of children ever born, as a proxy of parity, which included 785,604 men and women of European ancestry from 45 studies (Supplementary Table 14) 67. Number of children ever born was treated as a continuous measure and included both parous and nulliparous women. Linear regression models were used to estimate the association between genetic variants and number of children ever born adjusting for principal components of ancestry, birth year, its square and cubic, to control for non-linear birth cohort effects. Family-based studies controlled for family structure or excluded relatives. The sex-combined metanalysis also included interactions of birth year and its polynomials with sex. For our analyses, we used the 32 independent SNPs reported by the GWAS to be strongly associated with number of children ever born (P-value < 5*10-8) in either the sex-combined (28 SNPs) or female-specific (4 SNPs) metanalyses and summary association data from the female-specific metanalyses. The GWAS included UK Biobank (maximum estimated sample overlap: 14%).
Age at natural menopause
Genetic instruments were selected from a GWAS of age at natural menopause conducted in 201,323 women of European ancestry (Supplementary Table 14) 17. Linear regression models were used to estimate the association between genetic variants and age at natural menopause (in years). For our analyses, we selected 290 SNPs reported by the GWAS to be strongly associated with age at natural menopause (P-value < 5*10-8). Where available, we used association data from the sample combining discovery and replication stages (N = 496,151). Given the age at menarche GWAS included UK Biobank participants (maximum estimated sample overlap: 13% considering the GWAS combined discovery and replication samples), we have also selected an additional set of age at natural menopause-associated genetic variants (N = 42 SNPs) using data from a previous GWAS that did not include UK Biobank (details in ‘Sensitivity analyses’ below and Supplementary Table 14) 68.
Main analyses
We used a standard two-sample MR method, the inverse variance weighted (IVW) estimator, to explore the effect of age at menarche, parity and age at natural menopause on women’s metabolic profile by combining genetic association estimates for reproductive traits (extracted from published GWASes data) with genetic association estimates for the metabolic measures (generated from UK Biobank data). Given a priori evidence of a potential bidirectional relationship between age at menarche and BMI, we also used multivariable IVW to test the effect of age at menarche on metabolic measures accounting for adult BMI. For multivariable IVW analysis, apart from the data previously described, we used summary genetic association data for BMI extracted from the 2015 metanalysis by the GIANT consortium (N = 339,224 individuals not including UK Biobank participants) 69.
Sensitivity analyses
Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the plausibility of the three core MR assumptions, which are required for the method to provide a valid test of the presence of a causal effect.
Assumption 1: the genetic instrument must be associated with the reproductive trait
We selected genetic variants reported to be strongly associated with reproductive in the largest available GWAS and estimated the proportion of phenotypic variance explained (R2) and F-statistics for the association of SNPs with reproductive traits among females as an indicator of instrument strength.
Assumption 2: the association between genetic instrument and outcome is unconfounded
One of the main motivations for using MR is to avoid unmeasured confounding. However, there is growing evidence that, in some instances, MR studies can be confounded when using data from unrelated individuals due to population stratification, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects of parents 70,71. We used two approaches to explore whether these were likely to bias our main results. First, we used sex-combined data from a recent within-sibship GWAS, including up to 159,701 siblings from 17 cohorts, to test the effect of genetic susceptibility to higher age at menarche, parity and age at menopause on metabolic markers (i.e. LDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and glycated haemoglobin) 70. C-reactive protein and glycated haemoglobin were used as proxies for inflammation and hyperglycaemia, respectively, given GlycA and glucose were not available. Within-sibling MR designs control for variation in parental genotypes, and so should not be affected by population stratification, assortative mating and indirect genetic effects of parents 70-72. Second, we performed IVW on negative control outcomes (i.e. skin colour and skin tanning ability) since these could not conceivably be affected by the exposures and any evidence for an association between reproductive traits and, these negative control outcomes would be indicative of residual population stratification in the exposure GWAS 73.
Assumption 3: the genetic instrument does not affect the outcome except through its possible effect on the exposure
A key violation of this assumption is known as horizontal pleiotropy, where genetic variants influence the outcome through pathways that are not mediated by the exposure 74. We explored the presence of bias due to horizontal pleiotropy by using other MR methods: the weighted median estimator and MR-Egger. These methods can provide valid tests of a causal effect under different (and weaker) assumptions about the nature of the underlying horizontal pleiotropy. The weighted median estimator requires that at least 50% of the weight in the analysis stems from valid instruments. The MR-Egger estimator assumes that the instrument strength is independent of its the direct effects on the outcome (i.e. INSIDE assumption).
In addition to the core assumptions, the two-sample MR approach assumes that genetic associations with exposure and outcome were estimated from two comparable but non-overlapping samples. We restricted our analyses to European adult individuals to ensure that samples were comparable. We assessed potential bias due to sample overlap by conducting MR using SNPs selected from previous GWAS of age at menarche and age at natural menopause that did not include UK Biobank (Supplementary Table 14).
Data Availability
Access to UK Biobank data can be obtained under registration and application to the Access Management System (AMS) (https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/enable-your-research/register). GWAS summary data for reproductive traits is publicly available as detailed in Supplementary table 4.
Availability of data and materials
Analysis scripts and the analysis plan can be found on the following GitHub page: https://github.com/gc13313/nmr_repro.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
UK Biobank received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee (REC reference for UK Biobank is 11/NW/0382). The current analysis was approved under UK Biobank Project 30418 and 81499.
Funding
This research is supported by the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MRC) (MC_UU_00011/6, all authors), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 733206 LifeCycle (GLC and DAL), a University of Bristol Vice-Chancellor’s Fellowship (MCB), the British Heart Foundation (AA/18/7/34219, MCB and DAL and CH/F/20/90003, DAL) and the UK National Institute of Health Research (NF-0616-10102, DAL).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.
This publication is the work of the authors and all authors will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper.
Author contributions
DAL conceived the study. DAL, MCB and GLC designed the study. MCB and GLC performed the analyses. MCB and GLC wrote the original draft of the manuscript with input from DAL. All authors were involved in the interpretation of results, helped refine the manuscript, and approved its final version.
Declarations of Interest
DAL reports receiving support from several national and international government and charity research funders, and grants from Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic Ltd for work unrelated to that presented here. GLC and MCB declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
We are extremely grateful to Nightingale for the use of their data and for their helpful discussions throughout. We want to acknowledge participants and investigators from UK Biobank and the multiple large-scale GWAS consortia which made summary data available. This work used the computational facilities of the Advanced Computing Research Centre, University of Bristol - http://www.bristol.ac.uk/acrc/. The current analysis was approved under UK Biobank Project 30418 and 81499. We are also grateful to Professor Kate Tilling (University of Bristol), Prof Zoltan Kutalik, and Leona Knusel (University of Lausanne) who helped us with additional analyses undertaken to explore discrepant results between multivariable regression and two sample MR for the association of age at natural menopause with biomarkers.
Footnotes
↵* Joint first authors
We have made substantial changes to the manuscript to facilitate visualisation of results. This encompasses changing Figure 2 to forest plots to facilitate comparison between multivariable and Mendelian randomization (IVW) results for non-derived metabolites. Measures that are derived or related to lipoprotein subfractions have been moved into supplementary text (Supplementary figures 1, 7 and 11). The description of results also takes this format and structure. We performed further analyses to investigate reasons underlying discrepant findings between multivariable and MR estimates for some metabolic measures. These analyses were restricted to the eight clinical chemistry biomarkers matching measures in the NMR platform to maximise statistical power since they have been measured in the full UK Biobank sample. First, we hypothesised that discrepant findings were related to differences in the sample used for multivariable regression, which excludes women with missing data on age at menopause (hereafter ‘selected sample’), and two-sample MR, which includes women even if they are missing data on age at natural menopause (hereafter ‘full sample’). To test that, we compared estimates from multivariable regression on the selected sample to MR on both the selected sample and full sample. In agreement with our hypothesis, multivariable regression and MR estimates for LDL-cholesterol and related traits (i.e. apolipoprotein B and total cholesterol) are comparable when restricting to the selected sample. In contrast, for albumin, discrepant results were related to differences between multivariable regression and MR rather than between selected and full sample (Supplementary Figure 15). Second, given women with missing data at age at menopause are typically pre-menopausal and younger, we explored age-stratified multivariable and MR estimates, which revealed a strong effect modification by chronological age on the association of age at menopause and LDL-c and related traits: in younger women (≤ 50 y), later age at menopause is related to lower LDL-cholesterol, while the opposite is true for older women (> 58 y) (Supplementary Figure 15).
Abbreviations
- Ala
- Alanine
- ApoA1
- Apolipoprotein A1
- ApoB
- Apolipoprotein B
- ApoB_by_ApoA1
- Ratio of apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A1 Cholines Total cholines
- Clinical_LDL_C
- Clinical LDL cholesterol
- DHA
- Docosahexaenoic acid
- DHA_pct
- Ratio of docosahexaenoic acid to total fatty acids
- Gln
- Glutamine
- Gly
- Glycine
- GlycA
- Glycoprotein acetyls
- HDL_C
- HDL cholesterol
- HDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in HDL
- HDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in HDL
- HDL_L
- Total lipids in HDL
- HDL_P
- Concentration of HDL particles
- HDL_PL
- Phospholipids in HDL
- HDL_TG
- Triglycerides in HDL
- HDL_size
- Average diameter for HDL particles
- His
- Histidine
- IDL_C
- Cholesterol in IDL
- IDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in IDL
- IDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in IDL
- IDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in IDL
- IDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in IDL
- IDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in IDL
- IDL_L
- Total lipids in IDL
- IDL_P
- Concentration of IDL particles
- IDL_PL
- Phospholipids in IDL
- IDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in IDL
- IDL_TG
- Triglycerides in IDL
- IDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in IDL
- Ile
- Isoleucine
- LA
- Linoleic acid
- LA_pct
- Ratio of linoleic acid to total fatty acids
- LDL_C
- LDL cholesterol
- LDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in LDL
- LDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in LDL
- LDL_L
- Total lipids in LDL
- LDL_P
- Concentration of LDL particles
- LDL_PL
- Phospholipids in LDL
- LDL_TG
- Triglycerides in LDL
- LDL_size
- Average diameter for LDL particles
- L_HDL_C
- Cholesterol in large HDL
- L_HDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in large HDL
- L_HDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in large HDL
- L_HDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large HDL
- L_HDL_FC
- L_HDL_L Total lipids in large HDL
- L_HDL_P
- Concentration of large HD particles
- L_HDL_PL
- Phospholipids in large HDL
- L_HDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in large HDL
- L_HDL_TG
- Triglycerides in large HDL
- L_HDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in large
- L_LDL_C
- Cholesterol in large LDL
- L_LDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in large LDL
- L_LDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in large LDL
- L_LDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large LDL
- L_LDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in large LDL
- L_LDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large LDL
- L_LDL_L
- Total lipids in large LDL
- L_LDL_P
- Concentration of large LDL particles
- L_LDL_PL
- Phospholipids in large LDL
- L_LDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in large LDL
- L_LDL_TG
- Triglycerides in large LDL
- L_LDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in large LDL
- L_VLDL_C
- Cholesterol in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_L
- Total lipids in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_P
- Concentration of large VLDL particles
- L_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in large VLDL
- L_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in large VLDL
- Leu
- Leucine
- MUFA
- Monounsaturated fatty acids
- MUFA_pct
- Ratio of monounsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids
- M_HDL_C
- Cholesterol in medium HDL
- M_HDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in medium HDL
- M_HDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in medium HDL
- M_HDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium HDL
- M_HDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in medium HDL
- M_HDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium HDL
- M_HDL_L
- Total lipids in medium HDL
- M_HDL_P
- Concentration of medium HDL particles
- M_HDL_PL
- Phospholipids in medium HDL
- M_HDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in medium HDL
- M_HDL_TG
- Triglycerides in medium HDL
- M_HDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in medium HDL
- M_LDL_C
- Cholesterol in medium LDL
- M_LDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in medium LDL
- M_LDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in medium LDL
- M_LDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium LDL M_LDL_FC Free cholesterol in medium LDL
- M_LDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium LDL M_LDL_L Total lipids in medium LDL
- M_LDL_P
- Concentration of medium LDL particles
- M_LDL_PL
- Phospholipids in medium LDL
- M_LDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in medium LDL M_LDL_TG Triglycerides in medium LDL
- M_LDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in medium LDL M_VLDL_C Cholesterol in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in medium VLDL M_VLDL_C_pct Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium VLDL M_VLDL_FC Free cholesterol in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in medium VLDL M_VLDL_L Total lipids in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_P
- Concentration of medium VLDL particles
- M_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in medium VLDL
- M_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in medium VLDL
- Omega_3
- Omega-3 fatty acids
- Omega_3_pct
- Ratio of omega-3 fatty acids to total fatty acids
- Omega_6
- Omega-6 fatty acids
- Omega_6_by_Omega_3
- Ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 fatty acids
- Omega_6_pct
- Ratio of omega-6 fatty acids to total fatty acids
- PUFA
- Polyunsaturated fatty acids
- PUFA_by_MUFA
- Ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to monounsaturated fatty acids
- PUFA_pct
- Ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to total fatty acids
- Phe
- Phenylalanine
- Phosphatidylc
- Phosphatidylcholines
- Phosphoglyc
- Phosphoglycerides
- Remnant_C
- Remnant cholesterol (non-HDL, non-LDL -cholesterol)
- SFA
- Saturated fatty acids
- SFA_pct
- Ratio of saturated fatty acids to total fatty acids
- S_HDL_C
- Cholesterol in small HDL
- S_HDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in small HDL
- S_HDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in small HDL
- S_HDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small HDL
- S_HDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in small HDL
- S_HDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small HDL
- S_HDL_L
- Total lipids in small HDL
- S_HDL_P
- Concentration of small HDL particles
- S_HDL_PL
- Phospholipids in small HDL
- S_HDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in small HDL
- S_HDL_TG
- Triglycerides in small HDL
- S_HDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in small HDL
- S_LDL_C
- Cholesterol in small LDL
- S_LDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in small LDL
- S_LDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in small LDL
- S_LDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small LDL
- S_LDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in small LDL
- S_LDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small LDL
- S_LDL_L
- Total lipids in small LDL
- S_LDL_P
- Concentration of small LDL particles
- S_LDL_PL
- Phospholipids in small LDL
- S_LDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in small LDL
- S_LDL_TG
- Triglycerides in small LDL
- S_LDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in small LDL
- S_VLDL_C
- Cholesterol in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_L
- Total lipids in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_P
- Concentration of small VLDL particles
- S_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in small VLDL
- S_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in small VLDL TG_by_PG Ratio of triglycerides to phosphoglycerides
- Total_BCAA
- Total concentration of branched-chain amino acids (leucine + isoleucine + valine)
- Total_C
- Total cholesterol
- Total_CE
- Total esterified cholesterol
- Total_FA
- Total fatty acids
- Total_FC
- Total free cholesterol
- Total_L
- Total lipids in lipoprotein particles
- Total_P
- Total concentration of lipoprotein particles
- Total_PL
- Total phospholipids in lipoprotein particles
- Total_TG
- Total triglycerides
- Tyr
- Tyrosine
- Unsaturation
- Degree of unsaturation
- VLDL_C
- VLDL cholesterol
- VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in VLDL
- VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in VLDL
- VLDL_L
- Total lipids in VLDL
- VLDL_P
- Concentration of VLDL particles
- VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in VLDL
- VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in VLDL
- VLDL_size
- Average diameter for VLDL particles
- Val
- Valine
- XL_HDL_C
- Cholesterol in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in very large
- HDL
- XL_HDL_C_pct Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_L
- Total lipids in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_P
- Concentration of very large HDL particles
- XL_HDL_PL
- Phospholipids in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_TG
- Triglycerides in very large HDL
- XL_HDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in very large HDL
- XL_VLDL_C
- Cholesterol in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_L
- Total lipids in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_P
- Concentration of very large VLDL particles
- XL_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in very large VLDL
- XL_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in very large VLDL
- XS_VLDL_C
- Cholesterol in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_L
- Total lipids in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_P
- Concentration of very small VLDL particles
- XS_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in very small VLDL
- XS_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in very small VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_C
- Cholesterol in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_CE
- Cholesteryl esters in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_CE_pct
- Cholesteryl esters to total lipids ratio in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_C_pct
- Cholesterol to total lipids ratio in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_FC
- Free cholesterol in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_FC_pct
- Free cholesterol to total lipids ratio in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_L
- Total lipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_P
- Concentration of chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL particles
- XXL_VLDL_PL
- Phospholipids in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_PL_pct
- Phospholipids to total lipids ratio in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_TG
- Triglycerides in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- XXL_VLDL_TG_pct
- Triglycerides to total lipids ratio in chylomicrons and extremely large VLDL
- bOHbutyrate
- 3-Hydroxybutyrate
- non_HDL_C
- Total cholesterol minus HDL-C