Comparative Lipidomics in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: Distinct Molecular Signatures and Pathways for Precision Medicine

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of lipidomic profiles in Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), synthesizing recent findings from clinical studies to elucidate distinct pathophysiological mechanisms. It explores foundational lipid class alterations, including opposing trends in lysophosphatidylcholines and ceramides between T1D and T2D, and details advanced methodological approaches like UPLC-ESI-MS for biomarker discovery. The content addresses critical challenges in data standardization and validation, examines population-specific variations across racial, ethnic, and gender groups, and discusses the translational potential of lipid signatures for diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic applications. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, this review bridges foundational lipid research with clinical applications for advancing precision medicine in diabetes care.

Decoding the Core Lipidomic Landscapes of T1D and T2D

In the evolving field of comparative lipidomics, the distinct pathophysiological profiles of Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) are becoming increasingly apparent. Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, has emerged as a crucial tool for elucidating the underlying metabolic disruptions in diabetes [1]. Recent research reveals that specific lipid classes, particularly Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC) and Ceramides, exhibit strikingly divergent behavior between these two forms of diabetes, offering potential insights into their unique metabolic underpinnings and providing avenues for novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. This guide systematically compares these lipid alterations, providing researchers and drug development professionals with structured experimental data, methodological protocols, and analytical frameworks to advance this promising field of investigation.

Comparative Lipidomics Analysis: T1D vs. T2D

Core Divergence in Lipid Profiles

A 2024 untargeted lipidomics study characterized the serum lipidomes of 360 subjects, including individuals with T1D, T2D, prediabetes, and normoglycemic controls. The analysis identified 54 unique lipid subspecies from 15 lipid classes, with LPCs and ceramides showing diametrically opposed regulation between the two diabetes types [1] [2] [3].

Table 1: Directional Changes in Major Lipid Classes in Diabetes Mellitus

Lipid Class	Trend in T1D	Trend in T2D	Potential Functional Implications
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC)	Up-regulated	Down-regulated	Membrane integrity, inflammation modulation
Ceramides (Cer)	Down-regulated	Up-regulated	Insulin resistance, apoptosis, cellular stress
Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	Clearly down-regulated	Not consistently altered	Membrane structure, lipoprotein assembly
1-deoxyceramides	No significant change	Gradual increase from prediabetes to T2D	Early biomarker for T2D progression

The opposing trends for LPCs and ceramides in T1D versus T2D are particularly noteworthy. LPCs were predominantly up-regulated in T1D but down-regulated in T2D, while ceramides demonstrated the inverse pattern—up-regulated in T2D and down-regulated in T1D [1] [3]. This divergence suggests fundamentally distinct lipid metabolic disruptions in these conditions, potentially reflecting their different etiologies: autoimmune beta-cell destruction in T1D versus insulin resistance and progressive beta-cell dysfunction in T2D.

Sex-Specific Lipidomic Differences

The same study revealed significant sex-specific differences in lipid metabolism, with ceramides and phosphatidylcholines exhibiting important diabetes-associated variations between males and females [1] [3]. For instance, specific ceramide molecules were significantly decreased only in men with T1D, and normoglycemic women showed higher levels of certain phosphatidylcholines compared to men. These findings underscore the importance of considering biological sex as a variable in both research design and potential clinical applications.

Quantitative Lipid Species Alterations

Detailed Lipid Species Analysis

Table 2: Quantitative Changes in Specific Lipid Species in Diabetes

Lipid Species	T1D vs. Control	T2D vs. Control	Study Details
LPC 16:0	Increased	Decreased	360 subjects; UHPLC-ESI-MS [1]
LPC 16:1	Increased	Decreased	360 subjects; UHPLC-ESI-MS [1]
LPC 18:0	Increased	Decreased	360 subjects; UHPLC-ESI-MS [1]
LPC 18:1	Increased	Decreased	360 subjects; UHPLC-ESI-MS [1]
Total LPC	Increased	Decreased	360 subjects; UHPLC-ESI-MS [1]
C16:0 Ceramide	Decreased	Increased	Associated with insulin resistance [4]
C18:0 Ceramide	Decreased	Increased	CerS1-derived; impairs glucose homeostasis [4]
1-deoxyceramides	No significant change	Gradual increase from prediabetes	Potential early T2D biomarker [1]
Serum LPCAT3	Not assessed	21.51 ng/ml (T2D) vs. 24.43 ng/ml (NGT)	ELISA; 508 participants [5] [6]

The differential regulation of specific ceramide species is particularly clinically relevant. C16:0 ceramide, synthesized by ceramide synthase 6 (CerS6), shows significant elevation in T2D and is strongly associated with insulin resistance [4]. In experimental models, reducing C16:0 ceramide via CerS6 inhibition improved insulin sensitivity [4]. Similarly, C18:0 ceramide, produced by CerS1, is elevated in skeletal muscle in T2D, and its genetic ablation improves glucose homeostasis and insulin sensitivity [4].

LPCAT3 Enzyme Associations

A 2025 cross-sectional study of 508 participants investigated serum lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase 3 (LPCAT3), an enzyme crucial for phospholipid biosynthesis. The research found significantly lower serum LPCAT3 levels in T2D patients (median 21.51 ng/ml) compared to those with normal glucose tolerance (24.43 ng/ml) [5] [6]. However, the predictive capacity of LPCAT3 for T2DM was constrained (AUC=0.580), and its association with T2DM risk appeared confounded by obesity-related factors after multivariate adjustment [5].

Experimental Protocols & Methodologies

Lipidomics Workflow

The foundational comparative lipidomics study employed a rigorous untargeted approach with the following methodology [1] [2]:

• Participant Selection: 360 subjects (91 T1D, 91 T2D, 74 prediabetes, 104 controls) without cardiovascular disease or chronic kidney disease, matched by sex and BMI.
• Sample Collection: Fasting blood samples collected in EDTA tubes, immediately processed, and stored at -80°C.
• Lipid Extraction: 50μL of serum mixed with 150μL isopropanol (LC-MS grade), vortexed, centrifuged (22,000g, 20min, 4°C). Supernatant transferred for analysis.
• Lipid Profiling: Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS) in both positive and negative ion modes.
  • Column: Hypersil GOLD (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.9 μm)
  • Mobile Phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate + 0.1% formic acid in 60% acetonitrile/water
  • Mobile Phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate + 0.1% formic acid in 90% propan-2-ol/water
  • Gradient: 20% B to higher concentrations over 8.5 minutes
• Data Analysis: Multiple linear regression models adjusted for sex, age, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, BMI, glucose, smoking, blood pressure, lipids, dietary score, and eGFR.

Diagram 1: Untargeted Lipidomics Workflow

LPCAT3 Measurement Protocol

The LPCAT3 study utilized this methodology [5] [6]:

• Participants: 256 newly diagnosed T2D patients and 252 gender- and age-matched normal glucose tolerance controls.
• LPCAT3 Quantification: Commercial sandwich ELISA kit (JiangLai Biotechnology), serum diluted 1:4, absorbance measured at 450nm.
• Statistical Analysis: Spearman correlation, linear regression, Partial Least Squares analysis, logistic regression, and ROC analysis.

Biological Significance & Mechanisms

Ceramide Pathways in Insulin Resistance

Ceramides contribute to insulin resistance through multiple molecular mechanisms [4]:

• AKT Translocation Inhibition: Ceramide activates PKCζ, which phosphorylates and inhibits AKT/protein kinase B translocation to the plasma membrane, disrupting insulin signaling and GLUT glucose transporter translocation [4].
• AKT Dephosphorylation: Ceramide stimulates protein phosphatase 2A (PP2A), which dephosphorylates AKT, further impairing insulin signal transduction [4].
• Mitochondrial Dysfunction: Ceramide accumulation in mitochondria induces endoplasmic reticulum stress and impairs insulin action [4].
• Inflammatory Activation: Ceramides activate NLRP3-dependent IL-1β secretion and toll-like receptors (TLRs), particularly TLR4, inducing insulin resistance via IκKβ and NFκB signaling pathways [4].

Diagram 2: Ceramide-Mediated Insulin Resistance Mechanisms

LPC Metabolic Implications

The divergent LPC alterations between T1D and T2D may reflect differences in their metabolic states:

• LPCs in T1D: Up-regulation may correlate with increased LCAT (lecithin-cholesterol acyltransferase) activity, potentially representing a compensatory mechanism or reflecting different aspects of lipid metabolism in autoimmunity versus insulin resistance [3].
• LPCs in T2D: Down-regulation aligns with findings that lower LPC levels characterize patients with more severe metabolic disturbances. In diabetic patients with aortic stenosis, significantly lower levels of LPC 16:0, LPC 16:1, and LPC 18:1 were observed, suggesting LPC may serve as a cardiovascular biomarker in diabetes [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent/Instrument	Specific Function	Application Example
UHPLC-ESI-MS	High-resolution separation and detection of lipid species	Untargeted lipidomics of serum samples [1]
Hypersil GOLD Column	Reverse-phase chromatography for lipid separation	Separation of 54 lipid subspecies from 15 classes [2]
Commercial ELISA Kits	Quantitative protein analysis	Measurement of serum LPCAT3 levels [5]
Isopropanol (LC-MS grade)	Protein precipitation and lipid extraction	Serum lipid extraction prior to MS analysis [2]
Ammonium Formate + Formic Acid	Mobile phase additives for LC-MS	Enhances ionization and separation in positive/negative modes [2]
Ceramide Synthase Inhibitors	Selective inhibition of ceramide synthesis	Experimental modulation of specific ceramide species [4]

The divergent alterations in LPCs and ceramides between T1D and T2D underscore fundamental differences in their metabolic pathologies. The opposing trends—LPC up-regulation in T1D versus down-regulation in T2D, and ceramide down-regulation in T1D versus up-regulation in T2D—provide a lipidomic signature that distinguishes these conditions beyond traditional glucose-centric metrics. These findings, particularly the sex-specific variations and the gradual increase of 1-deoxyceramides during T2D progression, highlight the potential of lipidomics for developing personalized diabetes management strategies. For researchers and drug development professionals, these lipid species represent promising biomarker candidates and therapeutic targets worthy of further investigation in the context of diabetes precision medicine.

Phosphatidylcholine (PC) remodeling, a crucial process maintained by enzymes like lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase 3 (LPCAT3), represents a shared metabolic pathway implicated in both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). While lipidomic analyses reveal aberrations in PC species in both conditions, the underlying mechanisms and functional consequences are distinct. In T1D, specific PC profiles are associated with autoimmune pathogenesis and predict disease progression, whereas in T2D, PC remodeling directly governs membrane fluidity to modulate insulin receptor signaling and systemic insulin resistance. This comparative review synthesizes lipidomic, experimental, and clinical evidence to delineate the unique and common roles of PC metabolism across the diabetic spectrum, highlighting its potential as a target for mechanism-based therapeutic interventions.

Phosphatidylcholines (PCs) are the most abundant phospholipids in mammalian cell membranes, playing critical structural and signaling roles. The asymmetrical distribution of fatty acids in PCs is dynamically regulated by the Lands' cycle, a deacylation-reacylation remodeling process. The reacylation step is catalyzed by lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferases (LPCATs), with LPCAT3 being the major isoform in metabolic tissues such as the liver, intestine, and adipose tissue. LPCAT3 preferentially incorporates polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) into the sn-2 position of PCs, thereby influencing membrane fluidity, organization of lipid rafts, and the function of membrane-associated proteins, including insulin receptors [8] [9].

Emerging lipidomic technologies have uncovered profound dysregulation of PC metabolism in diabetes. However, the pathophysiological context and functional impact of these alterations differ significantly between T1D, an autoimmune disorder characterized by beta-cell destruction, and T2D, a condition defined by insulin resistance and progressive beta-cell failure. This guide systematically compares the experimental data, molecular mechanisms, and biomarker potential of PC remodeling across both diabetes types.

Lipidomic Signatures: Distinct PC Alterations in T1D and T2D

Large-scale lipidomic profiling of serum and plasma from diabetic cohorts has identified specific PC species associated with disease pathogenesis and progression. The tables below summarize the key lipidomic findings for each diabetes type.

Table 1: Phosphatidylcholine Species Associated with Type 1 Diabetes Pathogenesis [10] [11]

PC Species	Association Direction in T1D	Study Context	Notes
PC(36:4)	Consistently decreased	Pre-disease onset	Reported in multiple independent studies
PC(36:5)	Decreased	Pre-disease onset
PC(38:6)	Decreased	Pre-disease onset
Polyunsaturated PCs (e.g., PC(40:4))	Increased vs. controls at 3 months	Pre-disease onset	In children who later progressed to T1D
Alkyl-acyl PCs (e.g., PC(O-34:2))	Increased vs. controls	Pre-disease onset	Potential early marker
Sphingomyelins (SM)	Persistently downregulated	Pre-disease onset	e.g., SM(d36:1), SM(d34:1)

Table 2: Phosphatidylcholine and Related Metabolites in Type 2 Diabetes and Insulin Resistance [8] [9] [12]

Lipid Class / Species	Association Direction in T2D/IR	Functional Consequence	Experimental Model
Polyunsaturated PCs	Increased in adipose tissue	Promotes insulin resistance	HFD-fed, ob/ob, and db/db mice
LPC(14:0)	Altered in plasma	Correlates with sugar-rich food consumption	Elderly human T2DM cohort
LPC(20:4)	Altered in plasma (gender-dependent)	Potential biomarker	Elderly human T2DM cohort
LPCAT3 Activity	Increased in adipose tissue	Reduces insulin signaling	Mouse and human adipocytes in vitro

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Key Studies

This seminal study used a genetic knockout approach to establish a causal link between PC remodeling and systemic metabolism.

• Animal Models: Adipocyte-specific Lpcat3-knockout (aLpcat3-KO) mice were generated by crossing Lpcat3-Flox mice with adiponectin-Cre transgenic mice. Controls included wild-type (WT) littermates.
• Diets: Mice were fed either a standard chow diet, a Western diet (TD.88137) for 8 weeks, or a high-fat/high-calorie (HFHC) diet (D12331) for 16 weeks to induce insulin resistance.
• Metabolic Phenotyping:
  • Glucose and Insulin Tolerance Tests (GTT/ITT): Mice were fasted and injected intraperitoneally with glucose (2 g/kg body weight) or insulin (0.75 U/kg body weight). Blood glucose was monitored at 0, 15, 30, 60, and 120 minutes post-injection.
  • Insulin Signaling Analysis: Overnight-fasted mice were injected with insulin (5 U/kg) or PBS. Adipose tissue was harvested 30 minutes post-injection, homogenized, and lysed. Phospho-AKT and total AKT levels were assessed by Western blot using specific antibodies.
• Lipidomic Analysis: PC subspecies were quantified from 200 mg of subcutaneous white adipose tissue using liquid chromatography-coupled tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).
• In Vitro Validation: Isolated mature human or mouse adipocytes were treated with polyunsaturated PCs (e.g., 18:0/20:4 PC) at 0, 10, 50, or 100 μmol/L for 24 hours, followed by insulin stimulation. Glucose uptake was measured using a bioluminescent assay.

This study identified lipidomic signatures predictive of islet autoimmunity and T1D progression in children.

• Cohort Design: A prospective, nested case-control study within the Type 1 Diabetes Prediction and Prevention Study (DIPP). The cohort included:
  • 40 children who progressed to T1D (PT1D).
  • 40 children who developed at least one islet autoantibody but not T1D (P1Ab).
  • 40 matched autoantibody-negative controls (CTR).
• Sample Collection: 428 plasma samples were collected at ages 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months.
• Lipidomics Profiling: Molecular lipids were analyzed using mass spectrometry. The dataset included identified lipids from cholesterol esters (CE), diacylglycerols (DG), lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC), phosphatidylcholines (PC), phosphatidylethanolamines (PE), sphingomyelins (SM), and triacylglycerols (TG).
• Data Analysis:
  • Multivariate Statistics: Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) were used to identify lipid patterns discriminating the study groups.
  • Univariate Analysis: Individual lipids were compared between groups with statistical significance determined by false discovery rate (FDR) correction.

Molecular Mechanisms: Divergent Pathways to Pathology

The experimental data point to fundamentally different mechanistic roles for PC remodeling in T1D and T2D. The following diagrams illustrate these distinct pathways.

Phosphatidylcholine Remodeling in Type 2 Diabetes and Insulin Resistance

In T2D, the primary mechanism involves LPCAT3-mediated alteration of plasma membrane properties, which directly impacts the efficiency of insulin signal transduction.

Phosphatidylcholine Dysregulation in Type 1 Diabetes Pathogenesis

In T1D, the role of PCs is less mechanistically clear but is implicated in early-stage immune dysregulation and serves as a biomarker of future disease risk, rather than a direct modulator of insulin action.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents for Investigating PC Remodeling in Diabetes

Reagent / Solution	Function / Application	Example Use Case
Lpcat3-Flox Mice	Genetically engineered model for tissue-specific knockout of Lpcat3.	Studying cell-type-specific functions of PC remodeling in vivo [8].
Adiponectin-Cre Mice	Drives Cre recombinase expression specifically in adipocytes.	Generating adipocyte-specific Lpcat3-KO (aLpcat3-KO) mice [8].
Polyunsaturated PC Species	Defined phospholipids for in vitro supplementation.	Testing direct effects of specific PC species on insulin signaling in cultured adipocytes (e.g., 18:0/20:4 PC) [8].
LPCAT3 ASO (Antisense Oligonucleotide)	Suppresses LPCAT3 expression systemically in vivo.	Evaluating the therapeutic potential of LPCAT3 inhibition in diabetic mouse models [9].
UPLC/TQ-MS Systems	Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry for targeted lipid quantification.	Absolute quantification of specific PC and other lipid species in biological samples [13] [14].
Anti-Phospho-AKT & Total AKT Antibodies	Key reagents for Western Blot analysis of insulin signaling pathway.	Assessing insulin sensitivity in tissues after in vivo stimulation or in vitro treatment [8] [9].

Integrated Discussion and Future Perspectives

The evidence confirms that phosphatidylcholine remodeling is a common feature in diabetes but is distinctly expressed in T1D and T2D. In T2D, the pathway is mechanistically causative; LPCAT3 overactivity drives the incorporation of polyunsaturated fatty acids into PCs, disrupting membrane order and directly impairing insulin receptor function. This makes the LPCAT3-PC axis a promising and druggable target for improving insulin sensitivity, as demonstrated by the efficacy of ASO-mediated LPCAT3 knockdown [9]. In contrast, in T1D, alterations in PC and SM levels appear to be early biomarkers of the disease process, potentially reflecting external triggers or inherent metabolic vulnerabilities that precede and possibly contribute to the autoimmune cascade [10] [11]. The mechanism linking specific lipid species to beta-cell autoimmunity remains a critical area for future research.

Future studies should focus on:

• Mechanistic Elucidation in T1D: Determining whether PC changes play an active role in immune cell activation or beta-cell stress, or are purely reflective of other processes.
• Therapeutic Development for T2D: Advancing specific and potent LPCAT3 inhibitors toward clinical trials.
• Integrated Multi-Omics: Combining lipidomics with proteomics and genomics in large prospective cohorts to build predictive models for diabetes progression and complications.

This comparative analysis underscores the necessity of a precise, mechanism-based understanding of metabolic pathways like PC remodeling, which is essential for developing targeted therapies for different forms of diabetes.

The application of comparative lipidomics in diabetes research has revealed profound disruptions in lipid metabolism that differentiate type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). These conditions, while both characterized by hyperglycemia, exhibit distinct pathogenic mechanisms reflected in their lipidomic signatures. T1D, an autoimmune disorder resulting in pancreatic β-cell destruction, demonstrates unique sterol lipid profiles and phospholipid alterations. In contrast, T2D, characterized by insulin resistance and progressive β-cell dysfunction, is marked by the accumulation of specific cytotoxic sphingolipids, particularly 1-deoxyceramides (1-deoxyCer). These lipid species are not merely biomarkers but active participants in disease progression, influencing immune function, β-cell viability, and insulin signaling pathways. This guide systematically compares the experimental evidence for these lipid hallmarks, providing researchers with methodologies, pathway visualizations, and essential resources for advancing drug discovery in diabetes.

Comparative Lipid Profiles: T1D vs. T2D

Table 1: Key Lipid Species Alterations in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	Specific Species	Direction in T1D	Direction in T2D	Proposed Biological Role	Key Supporting Studies
1-Deoxyceramides	Multiple species (e.g., C18:0)	Not elevated [15]	↑ Significantly Elevated	Early predictor; induces skeletal muscle insulin resistance, impairs myoblast function [15]	Frontiers in Endocrinology (2021) [15]
Ceramides (Canonical)	Total Ceramides, Cer(d18:1/18:0), Cer(d18:1/20:0)	↓ Down-regulated [16]	↑ Up-regulated [16]	Promotes hepatic insulin resistance, cell stress, and apoptosis [17] [16]	Cardiovascular Diabetology (2024) [16], Sci. Reports (2025) [17]
Sphingomyelins	Various species (e.g., SM C16:0)	Down-regulated prior to seroconversion [18]	Elevated in adolescents vs. T1D [19]	Membrane integrity; signaling precursors	Curr. Probl. Cardiol. (2025) [19], Frontiers in Immunol. (2022) [18]
Phosphatidylcholines	Multiple species (e.g., PC 34:1, PC 36:1)	↓ Clearly down-regulated [16]	Mixed/Context-dependent	Major membrane component; reduced levels impair VLDL secretion [17]	Cardiovascular Diabetology (2024) [16]
Lysophosphatidylcholines	Multiple species	↑ Mainly up-regulated [16]	↓ Down-regulated [16]	Inflammatory modulation; opposite regulation is a key discriminator [16]	Cardiovascular Diabetology (2024) [16]
Sterol Lipids	24,25-Epoxycholesterol (24,25-EC)	Potential role in T-cell modulation via LXR activation [20]	Not highlighted in search results	Immunomodulation; suppresses pathogenic T-cell function in T1D model [20]	Nature Communications (2025) [20]
Triacylglycerols (Triglycerides)	Odd-chain, PUFA-containing	Elevated in autoantibody+ children [18]	Elevated in MASLD & insulin resistance [17]	Energy storage; lipotoxicity in excess	Sci. Reports (2025) [17], Frontiers in Immunol. (2022) [18]

1-Deoxyceramides: Hallmarks of T2D Progression

Experimental Evidence and Mechanistic Insights

1-Deoxysphingolipids (1-DSLs) are atypical sphingolipids synthesized by serine palmitoyltransferase (SPT) when it condenses alanine with palmitoyl-CoA instead of its canonical substrate, serine. This structural difference, specifically the lack of a C1-OH group, makes them resistant to normal degradation, leading to cellular accumulation [15]. Their role as early predictors and pathogenic drivers in T2D is supported by robust clinical and pre-clinical evidence. A key finding is that 1-DSL levels are significantly elevated in plasma from individuals with T2D and, crucially, in non-diabetic individuals who later develop T2D, independent of glycated hemoglobin and metabolic syndrome status [15]. This positions them as predictive biomarkers. Functionally, in vitro studies demonstrate that 1-DSLs are cytotoxic, compromising the functionality of skeletal muscle cells—a key site of insulin resistance. They significantly reduce cell viability, induce apoptosis and necrosis, impair migration, and disrupt the differentiation of myoblasts into myotubes. Critically, 1-DSLs also significantly reduce insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in mature myotubes, directly linking them to insulin resistance pathophysiology [15]. It is noteworthy that these lipids are not elevated in type 1 diabetes, underscoring their specificity to T2D progression [15].

Key Experimental Protocols for 1-Deoxyceramide Research

In Vitro Assessment of 1-DSL Cytotoxicity and Metabolic Function in Skeletal Muscle Cells

The following protocol is adapted from the mechanistic study on 1-DSLs in T2D pathophysiology [15].

• Cell Culture: Utilize the immortalized mouse C2C12 myoblast cell line (ATCC, CRL-1772). Culture in complete high-glucose Dulbecco's Modified Eagle's Medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% Fetal Bovine Serum (FBS) and 1X penicillin-streptomycin at 37°C and 5% CO₂.
• Differentiation: To induce differentiation into myotubes, switch confluent myoblasts to a differentiation medium of DMEM with 2% horse serum and 1X penicillin-streptomycin for 5 days.
• Lipid Treatment:
  • Test Compound: 1-deoxysphinganine (available from Avanti Polar Lipids, 860493P).
  • Controls: Include canonical sphinganine (non-toxic control; Avanti Polar Lipids, 860498P) and palmitic acid (toxic control known to induce insulin resistance; Sigma, P0500).
  • Preparation: Dissolve lipids in absolute ethanol to create 1 mM stock solutions. Use fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin (BSA) as a lipid carrier in the culture media. Common working concentrations range from 0.5 µM to 3 µM.
• Functional Assays:
  • Cell Viability: Quantify using Trypan Blue exclusion staining with manual counting or Thiazolyl Blue Tetrazolium Bromide (MTT) assay, measuring absorbance at 570 nm.
  • ATP Assay: Use the CellTiter-Glo Luminescent Viability Assay to quantify intracellular ATP levels, normalized to the number of live cells.
  • Migration Assay: Perform a standardized in vitro wound healing assay to assess myoblast migration capability.
  • Differentiation Analysis: Use immunocytochemistry (e.g., staining for F-actin with Phalloidin-FITC) and microscopy to evaluate myoblast fusion and myotube formation.
  • Glucose Uptake: Measure insulin-stimulated glucose uptake in differentiated myotubes using a fluorescent or radioactive 2-deoxyglucose analog.
• Data Analysis: Compare results from 1-DSL-treated cells against vehicle and control lipid treatments to isolate specific toxic and functional effects.

This experimental workflow reveals how 1-DSLs contribute to T2D-related muscle dysfunction, as summarized in the pathway below.

Unique Sterols and Phospholipids in T1D Pathogenesis

Lipid-Mediated Immune and β-Cell Dysregulation

The lipidomic profile of T1D is distinct from T2D, characterized not by 1-deoxyceramides but by specific alterations in sterols and phospholipids that participate in immune dysregulation and potentially β-cell vulnerability. A significant finding involves the mitochondrial hydrolase ABHD11 in CD4+ T-cells. Pharmacological inhibition of ABHD11 in a murine model of accelerated T1D led to increased biosynthesis of the oxysterol 24,25-epoxycholesterol (24,25-EC), which subsequently activated Liver X Receptor (LXR) signaling. This LXR activation suppressed cytokine production in antigen-specific T-cells and delayed diabetes onset in female mice, positioning this sterol pathway as a potential therapeutic target for modulating T-cell-mediated inflammation in T1D [20]. Beyond sterols, large-scale lipidomic profiling reveals consistent phospholipid disturbances. A 2024 study comparing T1D and T2D lipidomes found that lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) are predominantly up-regulated in T1D, while they are down-regulated in T2D. Conversely, canonical ceramides are down-regulated in T1D, contrasting with their up-regulation in T2D [16]. These opposite patterns highlight the fundamentally different lipid-driven pathophysiologies of the two conditions. Furthermore, phosphatidylcholines (PCs) are also clearly down-regulated in T1D subjects, which may influence membrane integrity and signaling [16]. These alterations often precede clinical diagnosis, as observed in cohort studies like TEDDY, which noted downregulation of sphingomyelins and phosphatidylcholines a year before seroconversion [18].

Key Experimental Protocol for T1D Sterol Lipid Research

Assessing the Role of ABHD11 and 24,25-EC in T-cell Function

This protocol is derived from the 2025 study investigating ABHD11 as a drug target in T1D [20].

• T-cell Culture and Inhibition:
  • Cells: Use human CD4+ T-cells isolated from peripheral blood or murine T-cells from spleens.
  • Activation: Stimulate cells with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies for 24-72 hours to mimic antigen encounter.
  • Inhibition: Treat cells with a highly-selective ABHD11 inhibitor (e.g., ML-226 for human T-cells; WWL222 for murine T-cells).
• Metabolomic and Lipidomic Analysis:
  • Employ Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) to track changes in the TCA cycle (e.g., accumulation of α-ketoglutarate and lactate) and sterol biosynthesis.
  • Quantify specific oxysterols, particularly 24,25-epoxycholesterol, using targeted lipidomics.
• Functional Assays:
  • Cytokine Production: Measure the concentration of key cytokines (e.g., IL-2, IFNγ, IL-17, TNFα) in cell culture supernatants using ELISA or cytometric bead arrays.
  • LXR Activation: Utilize reporter assays or measure the expression of LXR target genes (e.g., ABCA1) via qPCR to confirm pathway activation.
  • T-cell Polarization: Polarize naïve T-cells under Th1, Th2, and Th17 conditions in the presence/absence of ABHD11 inhibitor and assess lineage-specific cytokine profiles.
• In Vivo Validation:
  • Use murine models of accelerated T1D (e.g., NOD mice).
  • Administer ABHD11 inhibitor and monitor diabetes onset.
  • Analyze ex vivo cytokine production from harvested antigen-specific T-cells and assess insulitis.

The mechanism linking ABHD11 inhibition to improved T1D outcomes via lipid metabolism is illustrated below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for Diabetes Lipidomics Research

Reagent/Cell Line	Function in Research	Example Source / Catalog #
C2C12 Myoblast Cell Line	In vitro model for studying insulin resistance and myoblast differentiation; used to demonstrate 1-deoxyceramide cytotoxicity [15].	ATCC CRL-1772
1-Deoxysphinganine	Atypical sphingolipid used as a treatment in vitro to model its direct effects on skeletal muscle cells in T2D [15].	Avanti Polar Lipids 860493P
Sphinganine (Canonical)	Control lipid in experiments to distinguish effects of canonical vs. atypical sphingolipids [15].	Avanti Polar Lipids 860498P
Palmitic Acid	Saturated fatty acid used as a toxic control to induce insulin resistance in skeletal muscle cells in vitro [15].	Sigma P0500
ML-226 (ABHD11 Inhibitor)	Highly-selective pharmacological inhibitor of the human ABHD11 hydrolase, used to probe its role in T-cell sterol metabolism and function [20].	N/A (Research Compound)
WWL222 (ABHD11 Inhibitor)	Potent and selective inhibitor of the murine ABHD11 protein, used for in vivo studies in mouse models of T1D [20].	N/A (Research Compound)
Ultra-High Performance LC-MS	Primary analytical platform for untargeted and targeted lipidomic profiling of serum, plasma, and urine samples [19] [16].	Various Manufacturers
FibroScan (Transient Elastography)	Non-invasive device used to assess hepatic steatosis (CAP score) and fibrosis in clinical studies, e.g., linking lipid species to MASLD in T1D [17].	Echosens

Comparative lipidomics provides a powerful lens for distinguishing the pathogenic mechanisms of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The accumulation of 1-deoxyceramides serves as a specific hallmark for T2D progression, directly contributing to insulin resistance in skeletal muscle. In contrast, T1D is characterized by a unique profile involving altered sterol metabolism—such as the 24,25-EC/LXR pathway in T-cells—and distinct phospholipid patterns like upregulated LPCs and downregulated canonical ceramides. These lipid species are more than mere biomarkers; they are active players in disease pathogenesis, offering novel, mechanistically grounded targets for future therapeutic intervention. The experimental protocols and research tools detailed in this guide provide a foundation for further exploration and drug development in this evolving field.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), driven by atherosclerosis, remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide, with diabetes representing a significant aggravating factor [21]. Both type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes are associated with accelerated atherosclerosis and a higher incidence of cardiovascular complications, though the underlying molecular mechanisms are not fully understood [21]. Conventional lipid biomarkers—total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and triglycerides—often fail to reflect the complex alterations of lipid metabolism in diabetes [21]. The emerging field of lipidomics provides a powerful platform for discovering novel lipid biomarkers associated with cardiovascular disease, offering deeper insights into the distinct pathological processes in T1D and T2D [21] [22]. This guide compares the specific lipid signatures, particularly phosphatidylcholines (PCs) and diacylglycerols (DGs), associated with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis (SCA) across different metabolic states, focusing on their roles as potential diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets.

Experimental Protocols: Profiling Atherosclerotic Lipidomes

Core Methodological Workflow

The foundational studies cited herein employed sophisticated lipidomic profiling to investigate associations with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis. The following workflow visualizes the standard experimental pipeline, from participant recruitment to data analysis.

Detailed Methodology

Participant Ascertainment and Carotid Atherosclerosis Assessment

Studies employed cross-sectional designs with participants recruited from hospital and primary care settings [21]. Key inclusion criteria encompassed an age range of 20–85 years, absence of established chronic kidney disease, and no known clinical cardiovascular events or revascularization procedures [21]. All subjects underwent comprehensive clinical assessment, including recording of age, sex, tobacco exposure, pharmacological treatment, and anthropometric data [21]. Hypertension or dyslipidaemia was defined by the use of anti-hypertensive or lipid-lowering treatments, respectively [21].

SCA Ascertainment: High-resolution B-mode carotid artery ultrasonography was performed using standardized equipment (e.g., LOGIQ E9 or Sequoia 512) with 15-MHz linear array probes [21]. The presence of carotid plaques was defined according to the Mannheim consensus: a focal structure encroaching into the arterial lumen by at least 0.5 mm or 50% of the surrounding carotid intima-media thickness, or demonstrating a thickness ≥1.5 mm from the media-adventitia interface to the intima-lumen surface [21].

Lipidomic Profiling Protocol

Sample Preparation: Blood samples were collected after an overnight fast using EDTA tubes, processed immediately, and stored at -80°C [21]. For analysis, serum samples were typically thawed on ice, and aliquots were taken to form a pooled quality control (QC) sample representing all study samples [21]. Samples were randomized across analytical batches to minimize technical bias, with the sample order randomized again prior to instrumental analysis [21].

Lipid Extraction and Analysis: Lipid extraction from plasma/serum (typically 20-50 µL) was performed using ice-cold methanol/methyl tert-butyl ether mixtures [21] [23]. Following vortexing, shaking, and centrifugation, the organic phase was collected, dried under nitrogen or centrifugal concentration, and reconstituted in appropriate solvents for mass spectrometry [23].

Instrumentation: Untargeted lipidomic analysis was primarily conducted using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS) [21] [23]. Chromatographic separation utilized reversed-phase columns (e.g., Acquity Premier BEH C18) with gradient elution using acetonitrile/water and isopropanol/acetonitrile mobile phases modified with ammonium acetate and formic acid [23]. Mass spectrometry was performed in both positive and negative ionization modes with scanning ranges of m/z 60-1200 to m/z 120-1200 [23].

Data Processing: Raw data were processed using software such as MS-DIAL for peak detection, alignment, and lipid annotation [23]. Blank subtraction was performed, and internal standards were used for quality control [21] [23].

Comparative Lipid Signatures in Diabetes and Subclinical Carotid Atherosclerosis

Key Lipid Classes in Subclinical Carotid Atherosclerosis

The following table summarizes the principal lipid species associated with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in T1D and T2D populations, highlighting distinct and shared patterns.

Table 1: Lipid Species Associated with Subclinical Carotid Atherosclerosis in Diabetes

Lipid Class	Specific Species Regulation	Diabetes Type Association	Study Population Details	Statistical Significance
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	10 species upregulated	T2D [21] [24]	155 T2D, 151 T1D, 207 controls [21]	Multiple linear regression, adjusted for confounders [21]
Phosphatidylcholines with PUFAs	4 species downregulated	T2D [21] [24]	Individuals with T2D without dyslipidaemia [21]	p < 0.05 after adjustment [21]
Diacylglycerols (DGs)	3 species positively associated, 1 downregulated	T2D [21] [24]	Former/current smokers with T2D [21]	p < 0.05 after adjustment [21]
Sterols	1 partially annotated sterol	T1D [21] [24]	151 T1D subjects [21]	Significant association with SCA [21]
Ceramides (Cer)	Total ceramides elevated	T1D with MASLD [25] [17]	30 T1D participants (17 MASLD cases) [25]	P = 0.02 [25]
Triacylglycerols (TGs)	Total triacylglycerols elevated	T1D with MASLD [25] [17]	30 T1D participants (17 MASLD cases) [25]	P = 0.0004 [25]

Diabetes-Type Specific Lipidomic Profiles

Type 2 Diabetes: Prominent Phosphatidylcholine and Diacylglycerol Associations

In T2D, a significant disruption of lipid metabolism is associated with SCA, with 27 unique lipid species identified as significantly associated with the condition [21] [24]. Phosphatidylcholines and diacylglycerols emerged as the principal lipid classes associated with SCA in T2D [24]. The relationship was particularly pronounced in specific T2D subpopulations, with a larger SCA-associated lipid disruption observed in former/current smokers with T2D and individuals with T2D not undergoing lipid-lowering treatment [21] [24].

The phosphatidylcholine profile showed a complex regulation pattern: ten different PC species were upregulated, while four phosphatidylcholines containing polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) were downregulated [21] [24]. This suggests that both the quantity and fatty acid composition of phosphatidylcholines may influence atherosclerosis risk in T2D.

Similarly, diacylglycerols exhibited mixed regulation, with three species positively associated with SCA and one species downregulated in individuals with T2D without dyslipidaemia [24]. This nuanced pattern highlights the molecular specificity of lipid-atherosclerosis relationships.

Type 1 Diabetes: Distinct Lipidomic Landscape

In contrast to T2D, the lipidomic signature of SCA in T1D is markedly different. While several lipid features were significantly associated with SCA in T1D subjects, only one sterol could be partially annotated [21] [24]. This suggests a potentially different pathological mechanism linking lipid metabolism to atherosclerosis in T1D, or that alternative lipid classes may be involved that require more specialized analytical approaches for characterization.

However, studies investigating metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) in T1D have revealed significant alterations in other lipid classes. Individuals with T1D and MASLD demonstrated significantly elevated circulating levels of total ceramides, diacylglycerols, and triacylglycerols compared to T1D controls without liver disease [25] [17]. These lipid species were strongly correlated with higher body mass index and 24-hour insulin dose, suggesting a link with insulin resistance in T1D [25].

Pathophysiological Context and Signaling Pathways

The identified lipid species are not merely biomarkers but active participants in the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis. The following diagram illustrates the proposed mechanisms through which these lipid classes contribute to atherosclerotic progression in diabetes.

Mechanistic Insights into Lipid-Mediated Atherogenesis

The lipid species altered in diabetes-associated atherosclerosis participate in multiple pathological processes. Diacylglycerols and ceramides are known to induce insulin resistance by interfering with insulin signaling pathways, creating a vicious cycle that further exacerbates metabolic dysfunction [25] [17]. Ceramides, particularly elevated in T1D with MASLD, inhibit key mediators of the insulin signaling pathway, including insulin receptor substrate 1, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase, and Akt [17].

The reduction of phosphatidylcholines containing PUFAs is particularly significant given the potential anti-inflammatory and vasoprotective properties of polyunsaturated fatty acids [21]. This loss of protective lipid species may create a environment more permissive for endothelial dysfunction and inflammatory activation.

In coronary atherosclerosis development, studies in myocardial infarction-prone rabbits have revealed that long-chain saturated ceramide levels in VLDL and LDL particles are positively correlated with disease severity, independent of apolipoproteins and classical risk factors like cholesterol and triacylglycerols [26]. This highlights the importance of lipid composition within lipoprotein particles, not just their concentration.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Atherosclerosis Lipidomics

Reagent/Platform Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research	Experimental Context
Chromatography Systems	UHPLC (Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography)	High-resolution separation of complex lipid extracts prior to mass spectrometry	Used with reversed-phase BEH C18 columns [21] [23]
Mass Spectrometry Platforms	ESI-MS/MS (Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry), Q-TOF (Quadrupole Time-of-Flight)	Structural identification and quantification of lipid species	Untargeted lipidomics in positive/negative ionization modes [21] [23]
Lipid Extraction Reagents	Methanol/MTBE (Methyl tert-Butyl Ether) mixtures	Efficient extraction of diverse lipid classes from plasma/serum samples	Based on Matyash et al. protocol [23]
Internal Standards	CUDA, Splash iSTDs, stable isotope-labeled peptides	Quality control, quantification normalization, and instrument performance monitoring	Used in targeted proteomics and lipid quantification [26] [23]
Carotid Ultrasound Systems	LOGIQ E9 (GE), Sequoia 512 (Siemens) with 15-MHz linear array probes	Standardized assessment of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis	B-mode ultrasound for plaque detection per Mannheim consensus [21]
Data Processing Software	MS-DIAL, Skyline	Peak detection, alignment, lipid annotation, and MRM data processing	Untargeted lipidomics and targeted proteomics analysis [26] [23]

Lipidomic profiling reveals distinct patterns of phosphatidylcholine and diacylglycerol association with subclinical carotid atherosclerosis in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. While T2D shows a pronounced disruption involving multiple phosphatidylcholine and diacylglycerol species, the lipid signature in T1D is less characterized, with only sterol elements partially annotated [21] [24]. This divergence underscores the necessity for diabetes-type-specific approaches to both risk assessment and therapeutic development.

The heightened lipidomic disruption observed in T2D smokers and those untreated for dyslipidaemia identifies critical subpopulations requiring intensified intervention [24]. Meanwhile, the association of ceramides and diacylglycerols with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease in T1D suggests an important role for hepatic lipid metabolism in cardiovascular risk in this population [25] [17]. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies to establish causal relationships, refine analytical methods to better characterize the T1D lipidome, and explore targeted interventions that directly modulate these pathogenic lipid species to mitigate atherosclerosis risk in diabetes.

Advanced Lipidomics Technologies and Biomarker Discovery Pipelines

Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, has emerged as a crucial tool for understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying metabolic diseases such as type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) [27]. The field has evolved significantly from traditional chromatography methods to advanced mass spectrometry-based approaches that can precisely analyze thousands of lipid species [27]. Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-ESI-MS) and Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) have become cornerstone technologies in this transformation, enabling researchers to discover lipid signatures associated with diabetes pathogenesis, progression, and complications [2] [28]. These high-throughput platforms now provide the sensitivity, reproducibility, and quantitative accuracy necessary to unravel the complex lipid disruptions that characterize different diabetes subtypes, offering potential biomarkers for early diagnosis and personalized treatment strategies [29].

The application of these technologies in diabetes research has revealed profound insights into how lipid metabolism differs between T1D and T2D. A 2024 study published in Cardiovascular Diabetology demonstrated that lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC) and ceramides (Cer) show opposite expression patterns in T1D versus T2D, suggesting distinct underlying metabolic disruptions in these conditions [2] [1]. Similarly, lipidomic studies have identified specific ceramide species associated with diabetic retinopathy, providing potential serological markers for this common diabetes complication [28]. This comparative guide examines the technical capabilities, performance characteristics, and research applications of UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS platforms to inform researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals working in the field of diabetic lipidomics.

Technology Platform Comparison

UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS platforms share fundamental components but differ in their operational configurations and application strengths. UPLC-ESI-MS systems typically utilize ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography for superior separation efficiency coupled with electrospray ionization and high-resolution mass spectrometry for accurate mass determination [2]. LC-MS/MS platforms emphasize fragmentation capabilities and multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) for targeted quantification, often employing triple quadrupole or Q-Exactive mass analyzers [30] [28]. Both approaches have demonstrated utility in diabetes lipidomics, with selection dependent on research objectives, sample throughput requirements, and required analytical depth.

Table 1: Core Technical Specifications of UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS Platforms

Feature	UPLC-ESI-MS	LC-MS/MS
Chromatography	UPLC with sub-2μm particles	UHPLC or HPLC with 1.7-5μm particles
Separation Basis	Hydrophobicity (RPLC) or headgroup (HILIC)	Primarily reversed-phase (C18)
Mass Analyzer	Orbitrap (high resolution)	Triple quadrupole, Q-TOF, or Orbitrap
Ionization Source	Electrospray Ionization (ESI)	Electrospray Ionization (ESI)
Acquisition Modes	Full scan, data-dependent MS/MS	MRM, PRM, data-dependent MS/MS
Quantitation Approach	Relative or absolute with standards	Primarily absolute quantification via MRM
Lipid Identification	Accurate mass, MS/MS fragmentation	Fragmentation patterns, retention time
Throughput	Moderate to high	High to very high

Table 2: Performance Metrics in Diabetes Lipidomics Applications

Performance Metric	UPLC-ESI-MS	LC-MS/MS
Typical Run Time	8-20 minutes [2] [29]	8-15 minutes [30] [29]
Lipids Identified	54+ unique lipids from 15+ classes [2]	367+ lipid species [30] [28]
Reproducibility	CV <15% with quality controls [2]	CV <15% with internal standards [29]
Dynamic Range	3-4 orders of magnitude	4-5 orders of magnitude [29]
Sample Consumption	50-100 μL serum/plasma [2]	50-100 μL serum/plasma [28]
Ion Mode Capability	Positive and negative mode switching [2]	Polarity switching or separate runs [29]

Key differentiators emerge in their application to diabetes research. UPLC-ESI-MS excels in untargeted lipid discovery due to high mass accuracy (<5 ppm) enabling confident lipid annotation, as demonstrated in studies comparing T1D and T2D lipidomes [2]. LC-MS/MS platforms offer superior sensitivity for quantifying low-abundance lipid species implicated in diabetes complications, with detection limits reaching attomolar concentrations for signaling lipids [29]. Modern implementations often incorporate complementary technologies including ion mobility separation for enhanced isomer resolution and electron-activated dissociation for detailed structural characterization [31].

Experimental Protocols for Diabetes Lipidomics

Sample Preparation Protocols

Robust sample preparation is critical for reliable lipidomic profiling in diabetes research. The following protocol, adapted from multiple diabetes lipidomics studies [2] [28], ensures comprehensive lipid extraction while maintaining compatibility with UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS platforms:

• Sample Collection: Collect blood samples from T1D, T2D, and control subjects after an overnight fast using EDTA tubes. Immediately process samples by centrifugation at 1,500-2,000 × g for 15-20 minutes at 4°C. Aliquot serum/plasma and store at -80°C until analysis [2] [28].

• Lipid Extraction: Thaw samples slowly on ice. Aliquot 50-100 μL serum/plasma into microcentrifuge tubes. Add 300-500 μL ice-cold isopropanol containing internal standards (e.g., SPLASH LIPIDOMIX or odd-chain lipid mixtures) [28] [29]. Vortex vigorously for 30-60 seconds and incubate at -20°C for 30 minutes or overnight to precipitate proteins. Centrifuge at 10,000-22,000 × g for 15-20 minutes at 4°C [2].

• Sample Cleanup: Transfer supernatant to new LC-MS vials. For high-throughput applications, utilize 96-well plate formats with protein precipitation plates. Evaporate extracts under nitrogen if concentration is required, then reconstitute in appropriate LC-MS starting solvent (e.g., 90% isopropanol/acetonitrile) [29].

• Quality Control: Prepare pooled quality control (QC) samples by combining equal aliquots from all study samples. Include system suitability standards and process blanks to monitor contamination. Randomize sample injection order to account for potential batch effects [2] [29].

Liquid Chromatography Conditions

Chromatographic separation represents a critical step in comprehensive lipid profiling. The following conditions are optimized for diabetes lipidomics studies:

Reversed-Phase UPLC-ESI-MS Method:

• Column: CSH C18 (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) or equivalent [28]
• Mobile Phase A: 10 mM ammonium formate + 0.1% formic acid in 60% acetonitrile/water [2]
• Mobile Phase B: 10 mM ammonium formate + 0.1% formic acid in 90% isopropanol/10% acetonitrile [2]
• Gradient: 20% B to 99% B over 8.5-15 minutes, hold 2-3 minutes, re-equilibrate [2]
• Flow Rate: 0.4 mL/min [2]
• Column Temperature: 45-55°C
• Injection Volume: 2-10 μL

HILIC LC-MS/MS Method for Targeted Analysis:

• Column: BEH HILIC (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) or equivalent [29]
• Mobile Phase A: Acetonitrile with 5 mM ammonium acetate [29]
• Mobile Phase B: Water with 5 mM ammonium acetate [29]
• Gradient: 2% B to 30% B over 8 minutes [29]
• Flow Rate: 0.4-0.6 mL/min [29]
• Column Temperature: 40-45°C

Mass Spectrometry Acquisition Methods

Mass spectrometry parameters must be optimized for comprehensive lipid coverage in diabetes samples:

UPLC-ESI-MS Untargeted Profiling:

• Ionization: H-ESI with positive/negative switching or separate runs [2]
• Spray Voltage: 3.0-3.5 kV (positive), 2.5-3.0 kV (negative) [2] [30]
• Capillary Temperature: 320-350°C [2]
• Resolution: 70,000-140,000 (MS1), 17,500-35,000 (MS/MS) [2] [31]
• Scan Range: m/z 200-1200 or 150-2000 [2] [30]
• Fragmentation: Higher-energy collisional dissociation (HCD) with stepped normalized collision energy (15-30%) [31]

LC-MS/MS Targeted Quantification:

• Acquisition Mode: Multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) or parallel reaction monitoring (PRM) [28] [29]
• Resolution: 35,000-70,000 for PRM on Orbitrap platforms [29]
• Collision Energy: Optimized for each lipid class (e.g., 25-40 eV for phospholipids, 30-50 eV for sphingolipids) [28]
• Cycle Time: 0.5-2 seconds depending on number of transitions [29]

Signaling Pathways in Diabetes Lipidomics

Lipidomic studies in diabetes have revealed several key pathways disrupted in both T1D and T2D, with important differences between the two conditions. Ceramide metabolism emerges as a central pathway, though with opposite regulation in T1D versus T2D [2]. Sphingolipid signaling, particularly through ceramides and sphingomyelins, appears fundamentally altered in diabetes and associated with complications such as retinopathy [28]. Phosphatidylcholine metabolism also shows distinct patterns, with phosphatidylcholines generally down-regulated in T1D while showing more complex regulation in T2D [2].

The diagram above illustrates key lipid pathways disrupted in diabetes. Particularly noteworthy are the opposite ceramide patterns observed in T1D versus T2D, with ceramides typically up-regulated in T2D but down-regulated in T1D [2]. Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC) also show divergent behavior, being mainly up-regulated in T1D and down-regulated in T2D [2]. Specific ceramide species, including Cer(d18:0/22:0) and Cer(d18:0/24:0), have been identified as independent risk factors for diabetic retinopathy, highlighting the clinical relevance of these lipid pathways [28].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS lipidomics requires carefully selected reagents and materials. The following table details essential components for diabetes lipidomics research:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function & Importance
Internal Standards	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX, Odd-Chained LIPIDOMIX, deuterated ceramides [28] [29]	Enable absolute quantification, correct for extraction efficiency and matrix effects
Chromatography Columns	CSH C18 (100×2.1mm, 1.7μm), BEH HILIC (100×2.1mm, 1.7μm) [28] [29]	Lipid separation by hydrophobicity (RPLC) or headgroup (HILIC)
Mobile Phase Additives	Ammonium formate, ammonium acetate, formic acid [2] [29]	Enhance ionization efficiency, control pH, promote adduct formation
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Isopropanol, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), chloroform-methanol mixtures [2] [30]	Protein precipitation and comprehensive lipid extraction from biological matrices
Quality Control Materials	NIST SRM 1950 (Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma), pooled study samples [29]	Monitor system performance, batch effects, and technical variability
Reference Standards	Ceramide (d18:1/17:0), PC (15:0/18:1-d7), LPC (18:1-d7) [28] [29]	Confirm lipid identification, establish retention times, create calibration curves

Quality control deserves particular emphasis in diabetes lipidomics studies. The inclusion of pooled quality control samples, injected at regular intervals throughout the analytical sequence, enables monitoring of instrument performance and identification of technical artifacts [29]. For multi-center studies or longitudinal investigations, standard reference materials like NIST SRM 1950 provide essential harmonization to ensure data comparability across batches and sites [29].

Application in Type 1 vs. Type 2 Diabetes Research

UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS platforms have revealed fundamental differences in lipid metabolism between T1D and T2D. A comprehensive 2024 study analyzing 360 subjects (91 T1D, 91 T2D, 74 prediabetes, 104 controls) without cardiovascular or kidney disease demonstrated distinct lipidomic signatures using UHPLC-ESI-MS [2]. The research identified 54 unique lipid subspecies from 15 unique classes that differentiated these conditions, with particularly notable findings in ceramide and lysophosphatidylcholine metabolism [2] [1].

Table 4: Lipid Class Alterations in Type 1 vs. Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	Type 1 Diabetes	Type 2 Diabetes	Research Implications
Ceramides (Cer)	Generally down-regulated [2]	Generally up-regulated [2]	Opposite regulation suggests different pathophysiology
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC)	Mainly up-regulated [2]	Mainly down-regulated [2]	Potential biomarkers for distinguishing diabetes subtypes
Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	Clearly down-regulated [2]	Complex regulation patterns	Membrane composition alterations in T1D
Sphingomyelins (SM)	Class-specific variations	Class-specific variations	Associated with cardiovascular risk in diabetes
1-deoxyceramides	Minimal data	Gradual increase from normoglycemia to prediabetes to T2D [2]	Potential early markers for T2D progression

Beyond these class-level differences, specific lipid species show clinical relevance for diabetes complications. In diabetic retinopathy, ceramides Cer(d18:0/22:0) and Cer(d18:0/24:0) demonstrate significantly lower abundance in T2D patients with retinopathy compared to those without, suggesting their potential as diagnostic biomarkers [28]. This finding is particularly valuable since traditional risk factors like HbA1c, diabetes duration, and blood pressure often fail to predict retinopathy development accurately [28].

Sex-specific differences represent another dimension uncovered by these technologies. The 2024 study by Gonzalez et al. revealed that ceramides and phosphatidylcholines exhibit important diabetes-associated variations between males and females, suggesting potential mechanisms underlying known sex differences in diabetes complications [2] [1]. These findings highlight how high-throughput lipidomics can inform personalized approaches to diabetes management based on both diabetes type and individual characteristics.

UPLC-ESI-MS and LC-MS/MS platforms provide complementary capabilities for comprehensive lipid profiling in diabetes research. UPLC-ESI-MS excels in untargeted discovery applications, enabling identification of novel lipid signatures that differentiate T1D and T2D pathophysiology [2]. LC-MS/MS offers superior quantitative precision for targeted analysis of specific lipid pathways and validation of biomarker candidates [28] [29]. Both technologies have revealed profound disruptions in sphingolipid and phospholipid metabolism in diabetes, with opposite patterns for ceramides and lysophosphatidylcholines in T1D versus T2D [2].

The future of lipidomics in diabetes research will likely see increased implementation of single-cell approaches [31], integration with other omics technologies [32], and development of standardized protocols to enhance data comparability across studies [27] [29]. As these methodologies become more accessible and robust, they promise to transform our understanding of lipid-mediated mechanisms in diabetes pathogenesis and complications, ultimately contributing to improved prevention, diagnosis, and personalized treatment strategies for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

In the field of diabetes research, lipidomics has emerged as a crucial discipline for understanding disease mechanisms and identifying biomarkers. The analysis of lipidomic data presents significant challenges due to its high-dimensional nature, where the number of lipid features often far exceeds the number of samples. This complexity necessitates sophisticated multivariate statistical approaches for feature selection to identify the most biologically relevant lipids. Three primary methods have become cornerstone techniques in this domain: Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), and various Machine Learning (ML) algorithms. These approaches enable researchers to sift through thousands of lipid species to find those most associated with type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes (T2D), and their complications, thereby accelerating biomarker discovery and improving our understanding of disease pathophysiology.

Core Methodologies and Comparative Performance

Technical Foundations of Each Approach

PLS-DA is a supervised dimensionality reduction technique that maximizes the covariance between predictor variables (lipids) and response variables (disease states). It is particularly effective for dealing with multicollinearity, a common challenge in lipidomic data where many lipid species are biologically correlated. In diabetes research, PLS-DA models are typically validated using cross-validation and permutation tests to ensure model robustness. Variable Importance in Projection (VIP) scores are then used to select features, with VIP > 1.0 commonly employed as a threshold for identifying biologically significant lipids [33] [28].

LASSO regression performs both variable selection and regularization through an L1 penalty that shrinks less important coefficients to zero. This characteristic makes it particularly valuable for high-dimensional lipidomic data where the number of features (p) greatly exceeds the number of samples (n). The lambda (λ) parameter controls the strength of penalty, typically determined via cross-validation to optimize model performance while maintaining interpretability. LASSO's ability to produce sparse models makes it ideal for identifying minimal lipid biomarker panels [34] [35].

Machine Learning approaches encompass various algorithms, including random forests, support vector machines, and gradient boosting methods. These algorithms can capture complex, non-linear relationships between lipid species and disease phenotypes. Ensemble methods like random forests provide intrinsic feature importance metrics, while other algorithms can be combined with recursive feature elimination (RFE) to identify optimal lipid subsets. The flexibility of ML approaches allows integration of lipidomic data with other omics layers and clinical variables [36] [37].

Comparative Performance in Diabetes Studies

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Feature Selection Methods in Diabetes Lipidomics

Method	Typical Application Context	Key Advantages	Performance Metrics	Limitations
PLS-DA	Exploratory analysis; Class separation; VIP-based selection	Handles multicollinearity; Provides visualization capabilities; Intuitive interpretation	95.53% classification accuracy for IA prediction [33]; Predictive capability Q² = 0.761 [33]	Sensitive to outliers; May overfit without proper validation; Limited to linear relationships
LASSO	Biomarker panel development; High-dimensional data	Creates sparse models; Feature selection embedded in modeling; Reduces overfitting	C-statistic 0.71-0.74 for insulin requirement prediction [34]; Identifies minimal biomarker panels (e.g., 11 lipids [35])	Tends to select single representative from correlated features; Solution paths can be unstable with high correlation
ML Algorithms	Complex data integration; Non-linear relationships; Multi-omics integration	Captures complex patterns; Handles diverse data types; Robust to noise	AUC 0.91±0.15 for T2D prediction [36]; RMSE 18.54 mg/dL for glycaemia forecasting [38]	Black box nature; Computationally intensive; Requires careful hyperparameter tuning

Table 2: Experimental Results from Diabetes Lipidomics Studies Applying Different Feature Selection Methods

Study Focus	Feature Selection Method	Biomarkers Identified	Performance	Reference
Islet Autoimmunity (T1D)	PLS-DA with VIP	862 genes, 245 metabolites, 3 dietary biomarkers	95.53% classification accuracy; 88% prediction at 12 months before seroconversion	[33]
Insulin Requirement (T2D)	LASSO	Lactadherin, proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase receptor + clinical variables	C-statistic 0.74 (improved from 0.71 with clinical only)	[34]
Diabetic Kidney Disease	LASSO	Lipid9 panel: LPC(18:2), LPC(20:5), LPE(16:0), LPE(18:0), LPE(18:1), LPE(24:0), PE(34:1), PE(34:2), PE(36:2)	AUC: 0.78 for DKD detection; 0.83 with clinical indices	[14]
T2D Prediction	DIABLO (PLS-based multi-omics)	SACS, TXNIP DNA methylation; OPRD1, RHOT1 expression; ANO1 SNP	Accuracy 91±15%; AUC 0.96±0.08	[36]
Diabetic Retinopathy	PLS-DA with VIP	Cer(d18:0/22:0), Cer(d18:0/24:0)	Independent risk factors in multifactorial logistic regression	[28]

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standardized Lipidomics Workflow with Feature Selection

The typical workflow for lipidomic studies in diabetes research follows a standardized pattern from sample preparation through statistical analysis. Plasma or serum samples are collected from carefully phenotyped patient cohorts, followed by lipid extraction using methanol/MTBE or chloroform-based methods. Lipid analysis is predominantly performed using UPLC-MS/MS with C18 columns under positive and negative ionization modes to capture the broadest possible lipid diversity. After data acquisition, preprocessing includes peak alignment, normalization, and quality control using pooled quality control samples [14] [28] [39].

Following data preprocessing, the multivariate analysis phase begins. For PLS-DA, the workflow involves data scaling (typically unit variance scaling), model training with cross-validation to determine optimal components, and validation through permutation testing. VIP scores are then calculated for all lipid features, with those exceeding the threshold (usually 1.0) selected for further biological interpretation [33] [28].

The LASSO workflow involves data standardization, k-fold cross-validation to determine the optimal lambda value that minimizes prediction error, and fitting the final model with this penalty parameter. Features with non-zero coefficients in the final model are considered selected. For stability, this process is often repeated multiple times, with lipids consistently selected across iterations considered robust biomarkers [34] [35].

Machine Learning workflows are more varied but typically include data preprocessing, feature scaling, algorithm selection with appropriate hyperparameter tuning via cross-validation, and final model evaluation on held-out test sets. For feature selection specifically, methods like recursive feature elimination (RFE) or embedded selection methods are commonly employed [37] [39].

Pathway Mapping and Biological Interpretation

After feature selection, the identified lipids are mapped to biological pathways using enrichment analysis based on lipid class (LIPID MAPS classification) and metabolic pathways (KEGG, Reactome). In T1D research, PLS-DA-based selection has revealed alterations in lipid metabolism impairment, glycolysis dysregulation, and intracellular ROS accumulation as early as 12 months before seroconversion [33]. In T2D complications, LASSO-selected biomarkers have highlighted the significance of ceramide metabolism in diabetic retinopathy and lysophospholipid remodeling in diabetic kidney disease [14] [28].

Diagram 1: Comprehensive Lipidomics Workflow with Feature Selection Options

Application to Diabetes Research

Type 1 Diabetes Applications

In T1D research, PLS-DA has been instrumental in identifying predictive lipidomic signatures long before clinical manifestation. The TEDDY study applied PLS-DA to multi-omics data, revealing that abnormalities in lipid metabolism, decreased nutrient absorption capacity, and intracellular ROS accumulation are detectable in children progressing toward islet autoimmunity up to 12 months before seroconversion. The PLS-DA model successfully integrated 476 blood gene expression features, 680 plasma metabolomics features, and dietary biomarkers, achieving 95.53% classification accuracy with predictive capability (Q²) of 0.761 [33].

The lipid features selected by PLS-DA in T1D studies consistently highlight sphingomyelins, phosphatidylcholines, and ceramides as being significantly altered. These lipids are functionally implicated in β-cell destruction through mechanisms involving extracellular matrix remodeling, inflammation, and cytotoxicity. The early predictive capability offered by these lipidomic signatures opens potential windows for therapeutic intervention before irreversible autoimmune damage occurs [33].

Type 2 Diabetes and Complications

For T2D and its complications, LASSO has emerged as the preferred method for developing minimal biomarker panels with clinical translation potential. In diabetic retinopathy, LASSO regression identified Cer(d18:0/22:0) and Cer(d18:0/24:0) as independent diagnostic biomarkers after controlling for traditional risk factors like age, diabetes duration, and HbA1c levels [28]. Similarly, for diabetic kidney disease, a LASSO-selected panel termed Lipid9 - consisting of specific lysophosphatidylethanolamines (LPEs), phosphatidylethanolamines (PEs), and lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) - achieved an AUC of 0.78 for distinguishing DKD from diabetes alone, improving to 0.83 when combined with clinical indices [14].

Machine Learning approaches excel in T2D research for integrating lipidomics with other data types. One study demonstrated that combining lipid features with transcriptomic and methylation data using supervised multi-omics integration achieved impressive T2D prediction accuracy (91±15%) with AUC of 0.96±0.08 [36]. Similarly, ML algorithms have shown superior performance in forecasting glycaemia in T1D patients, with random forests achieving RMSE of 18.54 mg/dL across 12 predictive horizons [38].

Diagram 2: Feature Selection Method Applications in Diabetes Research

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent/Platform	Specific Product Examples	Application in Workflow	Key Characteristics
Chromatography Systems	Vanquish UHPLC (Thermo); Nexera UHPLC (Shimadzu); UPLC CSH C18 columns (Waters)	Lipid separation	High-resolution separation; C18 chemistry; Compatibility with mass spectrometry
Mass Spectrometers	Orbitrap Q Exactive HF (Thermo); TripleTOF (Sciex); Xevo TQ-S (Waters)	Lipid detection and quantification	High mass accuracy; Wide dynamic range; Multiple fragmentation capabilities
Lipid Extraction Reagents	MTBE; Methanol; Chloroform; Isopropanol	Sample preparation	High extraction efficiency; Compatibility with diverse lipid classes; Reproducibility
Internal Standards	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX (Avanti); Lipidyzer Internal Standard Kit (Sciex)	Quantification quality control	Stable isotope-labeled; Cover major lipid classes; Consistent retention behavior
Data Processing Software	LipidSearch (Thermo); Progenesis QI (Waters); SIMCA (Sartorius)	Data preprocessing and statistical analysis	Peak alignment; Lipid identification; Multivariate statistics integration

The comparative analysis of PLS-DA, LASSO, and machine learning approaches for feature selection in diabetes lipidomics reveals distinctive strengths and optimal application contexts for each method. PLS-DA excels in exploratory analysis and early disease prediction, as demonstrated by its ability to identify T1D-associated lipid signatures up to 12 months before seroconversion. LASSO regression provides superior performance for developing minimal biomarker panels with clinical translation potential, particularly for T2D complications where specific ceramide species show diagnostic value. Machine Learning approaches offer the most flexibility for integrating lipidomic data with other omics layers and capturing complex, non-linear relationships in heterogeneous diseases like T2D.

The choice between these methods should be guided by research objectives: PLS-DA for hypothesis generation and early biomarker discovery, LASSO for refined biomarker panel development, and machine learning for complex data integration and prediction model building. As lipidomics continues to evolve, hybrid approaches that leverage the strengths of multiple methods will likely provide the most comprehensive insights into lipid dysregulation in diabetes and its complications.

The development of multi-biomarker panels represents a paradigm shift in diagnostic medicine, moving beyond single-marker approaches to address the complexity of heterogeneous diseases. This is particularly evident in metabolic disorders like diabetes, where disease pathogenesis involves multiple interconnected biological pathways. The integration of high-throughput omics technologies with advanced machine learning algorithms has enabled researchers to identify biomarker signatures with superior diagnostic and prognostic capabilities compared to traditional single-analyte tests. Within comparative lipidomics of type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes, distinct lipid disruptions not only illuminate fundamental pathophysiological differences but also offer promising avenues for clinical biomarker development.

This guide objectively compares biomarker panel development strategies, validation methodologies, and performance metrics across recent studies, with a specific focus on applications in diabetes research. We present structured experimental data and analytical frameworks to assist researchers in designing robust validation workflows for clinical translation, emphasizing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis as a critical tool for assessing diagnostic accuracy.

Methodological Framework: From Discovery to Validation

Core Experimental Workflows

The development of a clinically translatable biomarker panel follows a structured pathway from discovery to validation. The following diagram illustrates the major phases of this process, highlighting key decision points and analytical steps.

Biomarker Quantification Technologies

Diverse technology platforms enable comprehensive biomarker profiling, each with specific advantages for different analyte classes:

Luminex Bead-Based Multiplex Immunoassays: This platform allows simultaneous quantification of up to 47 protein biomarkers in a single serum sample [40]. The methodology involves coupling fluorescently labeled beads with target-specific antibodies, followed by incubation with patient samples, biotinylated detection antibodies, and streptavidin-phycoerythrin for signal amplification. Fluorescence intensity is measured using the Luminex xPONENT software, with concentrations calculated using five-parameter logistic regression curve fitting [40]. This approach was successfully used in developing a pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) diagnostic panel, where it facilitated the identification of key biomarkers including CA19-9, GDF15, and suPAR.

Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-MS): For lipidomic profiling, UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS provides a powerful untargeted approach [2] [41]. The typical workflow involves lipid extraction from serum or plasma using isopropanol, separation on specialized columns (e.g., Hypersil GOLD), and detection via heated electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Mobile phases typically consist of ammonium formate and formic acid in acetonitrile/water (mobile phase A) and propan-2-ol/water (mobile phase B) with carefully optimized gradients [2]. This technology has revealed distinctive lipid signatures in T1D versus T2D, including opposite regulation patterns of lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) and ceramides [2].

Protein Microarrays: For autoantibody detection, custom protein microarrays enable high-throughput profiling of humoral immune responses [42]. These arrays are fabricated by printing antigen lysates on streptavidin-coated hydrogel microarray substrates in multiplex formats (e.g., 4 replica arrays per slide with technical triplicates). After incubation with patient serum and fluorescently labeled detection antibodies, autoantibody signatures are quantified using microarray scanning [42]. This approach identified an 11-autoantibody panel for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with superior specificity compared to CA19-9 alone.

Machine Learning Algorithms for Feature Selection and Model Development

Multiple machine learning approaches are employed to identify optimal biomarker combinations and build diagnostic models:

Tree-Based Algorithms: Random Forest, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), and CatBoost algorithms are frequently used for biomarker panel development [40]. These methods handle high-dimensional data effectively and provide feature importance metrics. In one study, CatBoost demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for pancreatic cancer detection among competing algorithms [40].

Regularization Techniques: Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression is widely applied to select hub genes or biomarkers while minimizing overfitting [43]. By applying a penalty term to the regression model, LASSO shrinks less important coefficients to zero, effectively performing feature selection.

Interpretability Frameworks: SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analysis quantifies the contribution of each biomarker to the model's predictions, enhancing interpretability [40]. This approach was instrumental in identifying CA19-9, GDF15, and suPAR as the most influential biomarkers in a pancreatic cancer detection panel.

Ensemble Methods: Combining multiple classifiers through ensemble learning often improves diagnostic accuracy and model robustness [40]. This approach leverages the strengths of individual algorithms while mitigating their weaknesses.

Performance Comparison: Diagnostic Model Validation Metrics

Quantitative Performance Metrics Across Studies

The following table summarizes key performance metrics from recent biomarker panel development studies, highlighting their diagnostic accuracy as measured by ROC analysis.

Table 1: Comparative Performance Metrics of Recently Developed Biomarker Panels

Disease Application	Biomarker Panel	Sample Size (Development/Validation)	AUROC (95% CI)	Sensitivity	Specificity	Reference
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma	CA19-9, GDF15, suPAR (Serum Proteins)	355/130	0.992 (All stages)0.976 (Early stage)	Not specified	Not specified	[40]
Primary Myelofibrosis	HBEGF, TIMP1, PSEN1 (Inflammation-Related Genes)	74/56	0.994 (0.985-1.000)	Not specified	Not specified	[43]
Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma	CEACAM1, DPPA2, DPPA3, MAGEA4, SRC, TPBG, XAGE3 (Autoantibodies)	94/223	0.850	0.828	0.684	[42]
MASLD in T1D	Ceramides, Diacylglycerols, Triacylglycerols	30 (Total)	Significant correlation with steatosis score (P<0.05)	Not specified	Not specified	[17]

Validation Cohort Characteristics and Performance

Independent validation is essential for assessing model generalizability. The following table compares validation strategies and performance across studies.

Table 2: Validation Cohort Characteristics and Performance Sustainability

Study	Validation Cohort Characteristics	Performance in Validation	Key Strengths
Pancreatic Cancer Protein Panel [40]	130 individuals from regional university hospital biobanks	AUROC: 0.977 (all stages)AUROC: 0.987 (early-stage)	Multi-center recruitmentPerformance maintained in early-stage disease
Primary Myelofibrosis Gene Panel [43]	External GEO datasets and local sequencing data (19 PMF + 6 transformed)	AUROC: 0.807 (external)AUROC: 0.982 (local sequencing)	Validation across multiple platforms and sample types
Pancreatic Cancer Autoantibody Panel [42]	223 samples including other cancers (colorectal, prostate)	PDAC vs PC: AUROC=0.703PDAC vs CRC: AUROC=0.843PDAC vs PRC: AUROC=0.802	Specificity testing against multiple cancer types

Comparative Lipidomics in Diabetes Research: Analytical Approaches

Lipidomic Workflow for Diabetes Biomarker Discovery

Lipidomic analysis follows a standardized workflow to ensure reproducible and biologically meaningful results, as illustrated below.

Key Lipidomic Findings in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Comparative lipidomics reveals distinct alterations in T1D and T2D, providing insights into their different metabolic underpinnings and potential diagnostic applications.

Table 3: Comparative Lipidomic Profiles in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	Direction of Change in T1D	Direction of Change in T2D	Potential Diagnostic Utility	Associated Metabolic Processes
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs)	Up-regulated [2]	Down-regulated [2]	Differentiation between diabetes types	Membrane remodeling, inflammation
Ceramides	Down-regulated [2]	Up-regulated [2]	Cardiovascular risk stratification	Insulin resistance, apoptosis
Phosphatidylcholines	Down-regulated [2] [44]	Down-regulated [44]	Hepatic steatosis assessment [17]	Membrane integrity, VLDL secretion
Sphingomyelins	Not significant	Decreased [44]	Insulin resistance monitoring	Membrane microdomain organization
Diacylglycerols	Not significant	Increased in MASLD [17]	Hepatic steatosis detection [17]	Insulin signaling disruption
Free Fatty Acids	Not specified	Up-regulated [44]	Disease progression monitoring	Lipid peroxidation, inflammation
Essential Fatty Acids (AA, EPA, DHA)	Not specified	Increased (adjusted for age, gender, BMI) [44]	Metabolic status assessment	Eicosanoid synthesis, inflammation

Sex-Specific Lipidomic Patterns in Diabetes Pathogenesis

Recent evidence highlights significant sex-specific differences in lipid metabolism that may underlie differential diabetes pathogenesis and cardiovascular risk:

Male-Specific Patterns: Men show elevated cholesterol sulfate and LPC 22:6 across all age groups, with sphingomyelins increasing after 40 years [44]. These patterns may contribute to the earlier onset of cardiovascular complications observed in diabetic men.

Female-Specific Patterns: In women, LPC 22:6 increases rapidly after menopause, suggesting hormonal influences on lipid metabolism [44]. This pattern may partially explain the accelerated cardiovascular risk observed in postmenopausal women with diabetes.

Machine Learning Insights: ML analysis of large cohorts (n=3,000) has identified long-chain fatty acids, ether-based LPCs, and clinical risk scores as the most informative features for T2D classification, with distinct patterns between genders [44].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for Biomarker Panel Development

Reagent/Platform	Manufacturer/Source	Primary Application	Key Features/Benefits
Luminex 200 System	Luminex Corp	Multiplex protein quantification	Simultaneous measurement of 47 biomarkers [40]
Human Angiogenesis/Growth Factor Panels	Millipore	Protein biomarker analysis	Pre-configured biomarker combinations [40]
Human Cancer/Metastasis Biomarker Panel	Millipore	Cancer biomarker discovery	Includes GDF15, DKK1, NSE, OPG [40]
UHPLC-ESI-MS/MS Systems	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Untargeted lipidomics	High-resolution lipid separation and identification [2]
Hypersil GOLD Column	Thermo Fisher Scientific	Lipid separation	100 × 2.1 mm, 1.9 μm particle size [2]
CT100+ Protein Microarrays	Custom fabrication	Autoantibody profiling	113 cancer-testis antigens [42]
Seegene PCR-based Multiplex Assays	Seegene Inc	Pathogen detection	28.9% market share in sepsis diagnostics [45]

The development of validated biomarker panels through rigorous ROC analysis and independent validation represents a powerful approach for improving disease diagnosis, particularly for complex conditions like diabetes and cancer. The comparative lipidomics data presented here reveal fundamental differences in lipid metabolism between T1D and T2D, offering not only insights into their distinct pathophysiologies but also promising avenues for diagnostic biomarker development.

Successful translation requires meticulous attention to methodological standardization, appropriate validation cohort selection, and comprehensive performance assessment using ROC analysis and related metrics. The integration of machine learning approaches further enhances our ability to identify optimal biomarker combinations and build robust diagnostic models. As these technologies continue to evolve, multi-biomarker panels are poised to significantly impact clinical practice by enabling earlier detection, more accurate classification, and improved monitoring of disease progression and treatment response.

In the evolving field of metabolic disease research, lipidomics has emerged as a powerful tool for uncovering the complex molecular mechanisms underlying diabetes pathophysiology. The systematic study of lipid molecules—the lipidome—provides unprecedented insights into the metabolic disturbances that characterize both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). While traditional clinical parameters like HbA1c for glycemic control and HOMA-IR for insulin resistance remain cornerstone measurements, they offer limited insight into the underlying metabolic dysregulation. The integration of comprehensive lipid profiling with these established clinical parameters represents a paradigm shift in diabetes research, enabling deeper understanding of disease heterogeneity, progression, and complication risks. This guide objectively compares how different lipid signatures correlate with standard clinical parameters across diabetes types, providing researchers with a framework for selecting appropriate lipidomic approaches based on their specific investigative needs.

Advanced mass spectrometry technologies now enable researchers to quantify hundreds of lipid species simultaneously, revealing distinct lipidomic patterns that reflect specific metabolic disturbances [46]. These lipid signatures not only differentiate diabetes types but also stratify patients based on their metabolic phenotypes, complication risks, and potential treatment responses. The correlation of these lipidomic profiles with clinical parameters provides a multidimensional view of diabetes pathophysiology that transcends traditional classification systems. This comparative analysis examines the current evidence linking lipid signatures to established clinical parameters, assessing the relative strengths of different lipid classes as biomarkers across diabetes subtypes and research contexts.

Comparative Lipid Signatures Across Diabetes Types

Type 1 vs. Type 2 Diabetes: Distinct Lipidomic Profiles

Direct comparative studies reveal fundamental differences in lipid metabolism between T1D and T2D. A 2025 investigation comparing adolescents with obesity and those with T1D demonstrated distinct lipid profiles, with significantly elevated diglycerides, triglycerides, and certain phosphatidylinositols in the obesity group (often preceding T2D), while phosphatidylcholines, phosphatidylethanolamines, cholesterol esters, sphingomyelins, and ceramides were elevated in T1D [19]. These differences highlight the divergent pathophysiological mechanisms: T1D characterized by autoimmune-mediated beta-cell destruction with consequent lipid alterations, and T2D characterized by obesity-driven insulin resistance with different lipid consequences.

Further evidence from Mendelian randomization studies has identified specific causal pathways in T1D, demonstrating that phosphatidylcholine (PC) (O-16:020:4) reduces genetic susceptibility to T1D by increasing myristoyl dihydrosphingomyelin levels (mediated proportion: 39.10%) and docosahexaenoylcholine levels (mediated proportion: 31.80%) [47]. Another phosphatidylcholine, PC (16:120:4), similarly reduced T1D risk by increasing myristoyl dihydrosphingomyelin (d18:0/14:0) levels with a substantial mediated proportion of 64.30% [47]. These specific lipid-mediated pathways offer new insights into T1D pathogenesis and potential therapeutic targets.

Pediatric vs. Adult Populations

Lipidomic signatures manifest differently across age groups, with youth-onset T2D exhibiting particularly aggressive clinical courses. A 2025 study focusing on children and adolescents with T2D and metabolic syndrome found significantly increased levels of specific lipid classes including phosphocholines (15-18 species), phosphoinositols (2-3 species), sphingomyelins (2-3 species), and triglycerides (1-4 species), along with decreased plasmalogens (2-6 species) and lysophospholipids (1-2 species) compared to healthy controls [23]. These alterations were more pronounced than typically seen in adult-onset T2D and correlated strongly with multiple metabolic risk factors.

Table 1: Lipid Classes and Their Correlations with Clinical Parameters in Diabetes

Lipid Class	T1D Association	T2D Association	Primary Clinical Correlations	Strength of Evidence
Sphingomyelins	Elevated [19]	Variable	HOMA-IR, BMI, waist circumference [23]	Strong
Ceramides	Elevated [19]	Elevated in complication risk	HOMA-IR, cardiovascular risk scores [48]	Strong
Phosphatidylcholines	Elevated specific species [47]	Decreased in insulin resistance	HbA1c, fasting glucose [44]	Moderate-Strong
Triglycerides	Variable	Consistently elevated	HOMA-IR, BMI, waist circumference [23]	Strong
Lysophospholipids	Not well characterized	Decreased [23]	Insulin sensitivity, inflammatory markers	Moderate

Correlation with Key Clinical Parameters

HbA1c and Glycemic Control

Lipid species demonstrate variable correlations with HbA1c across diabetes types. In T2D, specific lipid ratios and classes show particularly strong associations. The Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP) demonstrates significant correlation with glycemic status, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.824 for diabetes diagnosis, though it was less effective than fasting glucose and HbA1c alone [49]. Remnant cholesterol (RC) showed comparable performance with an AUC of 0.822 [49].

In pediatric T2D populations, phosphocholines, phosphoinositols, sphingomyelins, and triglycerides show significant positive correlations with HbA1c levels, indicating their potential as complementary biomarkers for glycemic monitoring [23]. Interestingly, a 2025 study on weight loss interventions found that baseline bioactive sphingolipids predicted changes in fasting plasma glucose following dietary intervention, while diacylglycerols and triglycerides primarily predicted changes in hemoglobin A1c [48]. This suggests different lipid classes may reflect different aspects of glycemic control—some indicating current status, others predicting future trajectories.

HOMA-IR and Insulin Resistance

Lipid signatures show particularly strong associations with insulin resistance as measured by HOMA-IR. In a comprehensive analysis of 19,780 NHANES participants, all six novel lipid indices examined showed dose-dependent associations with insulin resistance, with AIP and RC demonstrating the strongest links [49]. For Q4 versus Q1 quartile comparisons, AIP showed an OR of 5.74 and RC showed an OR of 4.09 for insulin resistance, indicating substantially increased risk in the highest quartiles [49].

Notably, for insulin resistance diagnosis, AIP and RC remained superior among lipid indices with AUCs of 0.837 and 0.830 respectively, showing no significant diagnostic disadvantage compared to established IR-related indicators [49]. Mediation analyses revealed that HOMA-IR mediated 43.1% and 50.3% of AIP/RC-diabetes associations, with more pronounced effects in older adults (>65 years), males, and those with BMI ≥25 kg/m² [49]. This demonstrates that the relationship between these lipid indices and diabetes is substantially mediated through their effect on insulin resistance.

Table 2: Performance of Novel Lipid Indices for Diabetes and Insulin Resistance Detection

Lipid Index	Abbreviation	Diabetes Diagnosis AUC	IR Diagnosis AUC	Optimal Cut-point	Strength for Diabetes Monitoring
Atherogenic Index of Plasma	AIP	0.824	0.837	0.31	Strong
Remnant Cholesterol	RC	0.822	0.830	31.0	Strong
Non-HDL Cholesterol/HDL Ratio	NHHR	Not superior to AIP/RC	Not superior to AIP/RC	Not specified	Moderate
Castelli Risk Index I	CRI-I	Not superior to AIP/RC	Not superior to AIP/RC	Not specified	Moderate
Estimated sdLDL-C	EsdLDL-C	Not associated after adjustment	Associated with IR	Not specified	Limited

Cardiovascular Risk Stratification

Lipidomic signatures provide significant prognostic information beyond conventional cardiovascular risk factors. Ceramides specifically have emerged as powerful predictors of adverse cardiovascular events, with commercial panels now available for clinical use [46]. In diabetes populations, specific ceramide species and ratios show strong associations with cardiovascular complications, offering improved risk stratification beyond standard lipid parameters.

The PREVADIAB2 study further demonstrated that distinct insulin-related metabolic features identify different phenotypes with distinct lipidome profiles associated with varying cardiovascular risk [50]. These lipid signatures provided stratification beyond glucose metrics alone, highlighting the value of lipidomics for identifying diabetes subtypes with elevated cardiovascular risk. Additionally, the association between specific lipid classes and gut microbiota composition suggests potential mechanisms linking dysbiosis to cardiovascular risk in diabetes populations [23].

Methodological Approaches

Core Analytical Technologies

Mass spectrometry (MS) has become the cornerstone technology for comprehensive lipidomic analysis due to its sensitivity, which allows for analyzing metabolites present at low abundance or in small sample volumes, and its quick turnaround time [46]. Modern approaches typically utilize liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC-MS), with untargeted methods enabling discovery of novel lipid signatures and targeted methods providing precise quantification of specific lipid classes.

The analytical process typically involves three stages: pre-analytical (sample collection, handling, and storage), analytical (sample preparation and instrumental analysis), and post-analytical (data processing and interpretation) [46]. Standardization at each stage is critical for generating reproducible and comparable data, particularly in multi-center studies. For diabetes research, careful attention to fasting status, time of day for collection, and minimization of freeze-thaw cycles is essential for reliable lipid measurements [46].

Standardized Protocols for Diabetes Lipidomics

Robust lipidomic analysis in diabetes research requires strict adherence to standardized protocols. For plasma lipid extraction, a modified Matyash protocol is widely employed, involving protein precipitation with ice-cold methanol/methyl tert-butyl ether followed by phase separation with the addition of water [23]. The organic phase containing lipids is then dried under nitrogen or vacuum and reconstituted in appropriate solvents for MS analysis.

For LC-MS analysis, reverse-phase chromatography using C18 columns with gradient elution is commonly employed, capable of separating diverse lipid classes based on their hydrophobicity [23]. Mobile phases typically consist of acetonitrile:water mixtures modified with ammonium acetate or formic acid, with gradient elution using isopropanol:acetonitrile mixtures [23]. Mass spectrometry detection employs both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes to capture the full diversity of lipid classes, with instrument parameters carefully optimized for maximum sensitivity and reproducibility.

The Researcher's Toolkit

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent/Material	Specific Example	Function in Workflow	Diabetes Research Application
Internal Standards	Avanti Polar Lipids quantitative standards [51]	Precise quantification of lipid species	Absolute quantification of ceramides, sphingomyelins
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Acetonitrile, methanol, isopropanol with ammonium acetate/formic acid [23]	Mobile phase for chromatographic separation	Maintaining ionization efficiency during LC-MS
Chromatography Columns	Acquity Premier BEH C18 column [23]	Lipid separation by hydrophobicity	Resolving complex lipid mixtures from diabetic plasma
Quality Control Materials	Pooled QC samples from patient cohorts [23]	Monitoring instrument performance and reproducibility	Identifying technical variation in longitudinal studies
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Methyl tert-butyl ether, methanol [23]	Protein precipitation and lipid extraction	Comprehensive recovery of diverse lipid classes

Analytical Platforms and Software

The analytical workflow for diabetes lipidomics relies on sophisticated instrumentation and bioinformatic tools. High-resolution mass spectrometers such as quadrupole time-of-flight (Q-TOF) instruments provide the mass accuracy and resolution needed for confident lipid identification [23]. For data processing, software platforms like MS-DIAL enable automated peak detection, alignment, and lipid annotation based on accurate mass and fragmentation patterns [23].

Statistical analysis typically involves multiple approaches including multivariate methods like partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) for group separation, correlation analysis (Spearman correlation) for clinical parameter associations, and machine learning approaches (Bootstrap Forest) for predictive biomarker discovery [48]. The integration of these bioinformatic tools with experimental data enables researchers to extract biologically meaningful insights from complex lipidomic datasets.

Implications for Drug Development

Target Identification and Validation

Lipidomics approaches are increasingly contributing to drug target identification in diabetes research. Mendelian randomization studies have revealed specific causal lipid pathways in T1D, identifying phosphatidylcholines that reduce genetic susceptibility to T1D by increasing specific sphingomyelin species [47]. These findings highlight potential therapeutic targets for preventing or modifying T1D progression.

In T2D, lipidomic profiling during interventions has revealed specific lipid species that respond to therapeutic interventions, with dietary weight loss interventions significantly altering diacylglycerols, ceramides, lysophospholipids, and ether-linked phosphatidylethanolamine [48]. These intervention-responsive lipids represent potential targets for pharmacological manipulation or biomarkers for monitoring treatment response.

Biomarker Applications in Clinical Trials

Lipid biomarkers offer significant potential for enriching patient selection and monitoring treatment response in diabetes clinical trials. Specific baseline lipid signatures have demonstrated predictive value for glycemic responses to interventions, with six baseline bioactive sphingolipids primarily predicting changes in fasting plasma glucose following weight loss, and various diacylglycerols and triglycerides predicting changes in HbA1c, insulin, and HOMA-IR [48]. These predictive biomarkers could enable early stratification of individuals with prediabetes who are metabolically less responsive to weight loss, facilitating more tailored intervention strategies.

The emergence of commercially available lipid biomarker panels, particularly for ceramides and other sphingolipids, provides opportunities for implementing lipid biomarkers in clinical trial contexts [46]. These panels enable risk stratification and patient selection based on underlying metabolic phenotypes rather than conventional parameters alone, potentially enhancing clinical trial efficiency and success rates.

The integration of lipidomic signatures with established clinical parameters represents a significant advancement in diabetes research and drug development. The evidence compiled in this comparison guide demonstrates that distinct lipid patterns are consistently associated with specific clinical parameters across diabetes types, with sphingolipids, glycerophospholipids, and glycerolipids showing particularly strong correlations with HbA1c, HOMA-IR, and cardiovascular risk scores. The differential expression of these lipid classes between T1D and T2D, and across different metabolic phenotypes, underscores the molecular heterogeneity underlying clinically similar presentations.

Future directions in the field include addressing current challenges in standardization through initiatives like the Lipidomics Standards Initiative, which aims to establish harmonized guidelines for lipidomic methodologies [51]. Additionally, the integration of lipidomics with other omics technologies and the application of artificial intelligence for pattern recognition hold promise for further refining patient stratification and biomarker discovery. As these technologies mature and standardization improves, lipid signatures are poised to become integral components of personalized diabetes management, complementing traditional clinical parameters to provide deeper insights into disease mechanisms, progression risks, and therapeutic responses.

Addressing Analytical Challenges and Population Variability in Diabetes Lipidomics

Lipidomics has emerged as a powerful tool for uncovering biomarkers and elucidating disease mechanisms in diabetes research. However, the field faces significant reproducibility challenges that hinder clinical translation. Substantial inter-laboratory variability in lipid measurements stems from diverse methodological approaches, analytical platforms, and data processing techniques [52] [53]. In the context of diabetes research, where precise lipid profiling could reveal crucial insights into the distinct pathophysiologies of type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes, this lack of standardization presents a critical barrier. Evidence suggests that lipidomic signatures can differentiate disease states long before clinical diagnosis, yet inconsistent findings across studies highlight the pressing need for harmonized methodologies [11] [10]. This guide examines the key sources of variability in lipidomics workflows and provides evidence-based strategies for overcoming standardization hurdles, with particular emphasis on applications in comparative diabetes research.

Quantifying the Reproducibility Gap in Lipidomics

Software-Driven Variability in Lipid Identification

A fundamental challenge in lipidomics lies in the inconsistent identifications produced by different data processing platforms, even when analyzing identical spectral data. A direct comparison of two popular lipidomics software platforms—MS DIAL and Lipostar—revealed alarmingly low consensus when processing identical LC-MS spectra with default settings [54].

Table 1: Software Discrepancies in Lipid Identification

Analysis Type	Identification Agreement	Key Issues
MS1 Data (default settings)	14.0%	Erroneous peak identification, insufficient peak separation, library differences
MS2 Spectra	36.1%	Co-elution of lipids, co-fragmentation, precursor ion selection window limitations

This reproducibility gap underscores the critical importance of manual curation and cross-platform validation, especially for researchers relying on software outputs without specialized lipidomics training [54].

Inter-Laboratory Comparison Studies

Broader methodological comparisons across multiple laboratories further illustrate the standardization challenge. An inter-laboratory study across 12 facilities analyzing identical cell line samples found that only approximately half of the measured metabolites produced comparable relative quantification data across different laboratories and assay methods [53]. The sources of discrepancy included:

• Inconsistent peak identification and insufficient chromatographic separation
• Differences in detection sensitivity across platforms
• Variability in extraction efficiency and derivatization reactions
• Incompatible compound nomenclature and identifiers across laboratories [53]

Another inter-laboratory study of 31 different lipidomics workflows analyzing Standard Reference Material 1950 revealed significant differences in absolute quantitation of plasma lipid concentrations, confirming that variability extends beyond discovery-phase analyses to quantitative applications [53].

Lipidomic Signatures in Diabetes: A Comparative Analysis

Despite methodological challenges, lipidomics has revealed compelling signatures distinguishing type 1 and type 2 diabetes. The table below synthesizes findings from multiple studies, highlighting consistent patterns and disease-specific alterations.

Table 2: Comparative Lipidomic Alterations in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	Type 1 Diabetes Findings	Type 2 Diabetes Findings	Consensus Across Studies
Sphingomyelins (SM)	Persistently downregulated in progressors to T1D [11]	Specific molecular species (SM C34:1, SM C36:1) associated with increased risk [55]	Limited direct comparison; different species reported
Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	Generally decreased in T1DM with glycemic control [55]; Distinct species altered pre-diagnosis [11] [10]	PC species associated with insulin resistance and risk prediction [46]	Multiple studies report PC alterations in both types
Triacylglycerols (TAG)	Downregulated in progressors to T1D at early age [11]; Decreased with glycemic control [55]	Traditional cardiovascular risk marker; Detailed molecular speciation available [46]	Opposite directional changes reported (context-dependent)
Diacylglycerols (DAG)	Significantly decreased in T1DM with glycemic control [55]	Implicated in insulin resistance mechanisms	Limited comparable evidence
Ceramides (Cer)	Specific species associated with disease progression [10]	Cer(d18:1/20:0) associated with T2D risk; Commercial panels available [55] [46]	Ceramide panels more established for T2D

A quantitative analysis of eight lipidomics studies in T1D revealed that only a small subset of lipid species has been consistently reported across multiple studies. For instance, PC(36:4) was reported in five studies, while several triacylglycerol species (TG(50:1), TG(46:1), TG(50:3)) appeared in three studies each [10]. This limited consensus reflects both methodological differences and the biological complexity of diabetes pathogenesis.

Methodological Standards: Experimental Protocols for Reproducible Lipidomics

Sample Collection and Pre-Analytical Processing

Standardized pre-analytical procedures are crucial for generating reliable lipidomic data. Key considerations include:

• Sample Collection Consistency: Implement standardized protocols for time of day, fasting status, collection tubes, and centrifugation steps before freezing [46].
• Lipid Extraction Methodology: Utilize modified Folch extraction (chloroform:methanol, 2:1 v/v) with addition of antioxidant preservatives (e.g., 0.01% BHT) to prevent oxidation [54] [55].
• Internal Standardization: Incorporate stable isotope-labeled and non-physiological lipid species as internal standards (e.g., Avanti EquiSPLASH LIPIDOMIX) added prior to extraction [54] [55].
• Sample Storage Conditions: Limit freeze-thaw cycles and maintain consistent storage at -80°C to preserve lipid stability [46].

Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Chromatographic separation and mass spectrometry conditions significantly impact lipid identification and quantification:

• Chromatographic Separation: Utilize reversed-phase C18 columns (e.g., 1.8 μm, 2.1×100 mm) with binary gradients combining aqueous and organic phases containing volatile salts (e.g., 10 mM ammonium formate) [56] [55].
• Mass Spectrometry Platforms: Employ high-resolution instruments (FTICR, Orbitrap, Q-TOF) capable of accurate mass measurements (<5 ppm mass error) for confident lipid identification [56] [46].
• Ionization Conditions: Apply both positive and negative electrospray ionization modes to comprehensively capture diverse lipid classes [55].
• Quality Control: Implement reference materials and quality control pools to monitor instrument performance and enable cross-laboratory data normalization [53].

Lipid Identification and Data Processing

The post-analytical phase requires rigorous standardization to ensure confident lipid identifications:

• Multi-dimensional Identification: Combine accurate mass, retention time, and fragmentation patterns (MS/MS) for confident annotations [54].
• Data Processing Consistency: Apply consistent peak picking, alignment, and integration parameters across samples; implement manual curation of automated software identifications [54].
• Cross-Platform Validation: Verify critical identifications using multiple software platforms and orthogonal analytical approaches [54].
• Nomenclature Standardization: Adopt Harmonized Lipid Molecular Names according to Lipid Maps conventions to enable cross-study comparisons [53].

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Standardized Lipidomics

Reagent/Resource	Function	Application Examples
Stable Isotope Internal Standards	Normalization of extraction efficiency and MS response	Avanti EquiSPLASH LIPIDOMIX; deuterated PC, TG, Cer species [54] [55]
Reference Materials	Inter-laboratory calibration and quality control	NIST SRM 1950 - Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma [53]
Antioxidant Preservatives	Prevention of lipid oxidation during processing	Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) at 0.01% [54]
Standardized Extraction Solvents	Reproducible lipid recovery across samples	Chloroform:methanol (2:1 v/v) Folch extraction [56] [55]
Chromatographic Mobile Phases	Optimal separation of lipid classes	10 mM ammonium formate in water/acetonitrile/isopropanol [56] [55]
Lipidomics Software Platforms	Data processing, peak identification, and quantification	MS DIAL, Lipostar (with manual curation) [54]
Lipid Structure Databases	Confident identification of lipid species	LIPID MAPS, LipidBlast, HMDB [57] [54]

Overcoming standardization hurdles in lipidomics requires concerted community effort and adoption of best practices throughout the workflow. Promising approaches include implementing reference materials for cross-laboratory normalization, establishing standardized reporting guidelines for lipidomic data, and developing data-driven quality control methods to identify potential false positives [54] [53]. For diabetes researchers, addressing these challenges is particularly crucial for distinguishing true disease-specific lipid alterations from methodological artifacts, ultimately enabling reliable biomarker discovery and mechanistic insights into the distinct metabolic disruptions in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. As lipidomics technologies continue to advance, maintaining focus on standardization and reproducibility will be essential for translating these powerful approaches into clinical applications.

Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, provides a powerful lens for understanding the pathophysiology of complex metabolic diseases like diabetes mellitus. However, the prevailing "one-size-fits-all" biomarker approach often overlooks critical biological and social heterogeneity. Type 1 diabetes (T1D) and Type 2 diabetes (T2D) exhibit distinct etiologies, yet their lipidomic profiles and the influence of demographic factors are only beginning to be unraveled. Emerging evidence underscores that lipidomic signatures are not uniform across populations but are significantly shaped by gender, ethnicity, and race [16] [58]. These differences can influence disease presentation, progression, and response to therapy, challenging the generalizability of findings from homogenous cohorts. This comparative guide synthesizes current lipidomic research in diabetes, focusing on population-specific variations. We objectively compare experimental data, detail methodological protocols, and visualize core concepts to equip researchers and drug development professionals with the tools needed for a more precise and equitable approach to diabetes biomarker discovery and therapeutic development.

Comparative Analysis of Lipidomic Alterations in Diabetes

The lipidomic landscape is disrupted in both T1D and T2D, but in often divergent ways. Furthermore, key demographic factors significantly modulate these alterations, as summarized in the tables below.

Table 1: Key Lipid Class Alterations in T1D and T2D

Lipid Class	Association with T1D	Association with T2D	Proposed Pathophysiological Role
Ceramides (Cer)	Generally down-regulated [16]	Up-regulated; associated with insulin resistance and cardiometabolic risk [50] [16]	Promotes apoptosis, inhibits insulin signaling in muscle and liver
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC)	Mainly up-regulated [16]	Down-regulated in T2D; associated with improved insulin sensitivity when increased by diet [44] [59]	Modulates immune function and insulin secretion; potential anti-inflammatory effects
Phosphatidylcholines (PC)	Clearly down-regulated [16]	Conflicting reports; some species decreased, diet can modulate specific PCs [44] [59]	Major membrane phospholipid; alterations indicate membrane instability and metabolic stress
Sphingomyelins (SM)	Decreased [44]	Increased in some cohorts [23]; Cer/SM ratio is higher in men [50]	Storage pool for ceramides; a lower Cer/SM ratio may indicate reduced ceramide synthesis
Triglycerides (TG)	Specific species (e.g., TG(50:1), TG(50:3)) elevated at onset and decrease with treatment [60]	Multiple species increased, especially in obesity; associated with dietary patterns [44] [59] [23]	Energy storage; elevated levels reflect dysregulated energy metabolism and lipid overflow
Dihydroceramides	Information Not Specified in Search Results	Gradual increase from normoglycemia to prediabetes to T2D [16]	Precursor to ceramides; early marker of de novo ceramide synthesis in pathogenesis

Table 2: Impact of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on the Diabetes Lipidome

Demographic Factor	Key Lipidomic Findings	Study Population
Gender (Biological Sex)	• Men: Higher ceramide-to-sphingomyelin ratio [50].• Women: Higher levels of circulating dihydroceramides and sphingomyelins [50].• Men: Cholesterol sulfate and LPC 22:6 elevated across age groups [44].• Women: LPC 22:6 increases rapidly after menopause [44].	Asian Indians [44]; Multi-ethnic [50]
Race & Ethnicity	• Asian Indians: Essential FAs (AA, EPA, DHA) significantly increased in T2D; most ω-3/ω-6 FAs reduced 2-6 fold in obesity [44].• White Individuals with Diabetes: Exhibit elevated Cholesterol:HDL ratios, triglycerides, and classical inflammatory markers (hs-CRP) [58].• African American Individuals with Diabetes: Minimal lipid elevations; show increased Th17-related cytokines (e.g., IL-17A) [58].	Asian Indians [44]; White & African Americans [58]
Geographical/Dietary Background	• Mediterranean & Chinese Diets: Increase TAG fractions and PC(16:0/22:6) associated with improved insulin sensitivity; higher red meat intake raises plasmalogens linked to worsened fasting glucose [59].	Chinese [59]; Mediterranean [61]

Experimental Protocols in Diabetes Lipidomics

Robust and standardized experimental protocols are the foundation of reliable lipidomic data. The following section details common methodologies cited in diabetes lipidomics research.

Sample Preparation and Lipid Extraction

A common sample preparation protocol, used in studies of T1D, T2D, and non-diabetic subjects, involves the following steps [16]:

• Sample Collection & Storage: Blood samples are collected in the fasting state using EDTA tubes. They are processed immediately after extraction, and plasma or serum is aliquoted and stored at -80°C until analysis.
• Thawing & Aliquoting: Frozen serum samples are thawed on ice. A pooled quality control (QC) sample is created by combining a small aliquot from every biological sample to monitor instrument performance.
• Protein Precipitation & Lipid Extraction: A typical method uses 50 μL of serum mixed with 150 μL of ice-cold isopropanol (containing internal standards for quantification).
• Mixing and Centrifugation: The mixture is vortexed vigorously and then centrifuged at high speed (e.g., 22,000 × g) for 20 minutes at 4°C to pellet proteins and other insoluble debris.
• Supernatant Collection: The clear supernatant (lipid-containing extract) is transferred to a fresh vial for instrumental analysis.

Alternative extraction protocols, such as the method by Matyash et al. using methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), are also widely employed, especially for untargeted approaches [23].

Instrumental Analysis: LC-MS

Ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) is the workhorse of modern lipidomics.

• Chromatography: A common setup uses a reversed-phase C18 column (e.g., Hypersil GOLD, 100 × 2.1 mm, 1.9 μm) maintained at 45-65°C. The mobile phase typically consists of water or water/acetonitrile with ammonium salts (formate or acetate) and an organic phase like isopropanol/acetonitrile. A gradient elution is run to separate lipid species by hydrophobicity [23] [16].
• Mass Spectrometry: A Q Exactive Focus mass spectrometer or similar (e.g., quadrupole time-of-flight) is used. Data is acquired in both positive and negative electrospray ionization (ESI) modes to capture the broadest range of lipids. The mass spectrometer operates in data-dependent acquisition (DDA) mode, cycling between a full MS scan and subsequent MS/MS scans to fragment and identify the molecular structure of the lipids [23] [16].

Data Processing and Lipid Annotation

• Peak Detection and Alignment: Raw data files are processed using software like MS-DIAL or similar platforms. This involves peak picking, alignment across samples, and deconvolution [23].
• Lipid Identification: Lipids are annotated by matching the accurate mass and retention time of intact precursor ions (MS1) and their characteristic fragment spectra (MS/MS) against databases such as LIPID MAPS. The use of internal standards is critical for confident identification and quantification [62].
• Statistical Analysis: After normalization and data cleaning, multivariate statistics (e.g., PCA, OPLS-DA) and univariate tests (e.g., t-tests, regression models) are applied to identify lipids that are significantly altered between experimental groups. Models are often adjusted for confounders like age, BMI, and medication use [16].

Visualizing Lipidomic Workflows and Pathways

The following diagrams illustrate the standard experimental workflow in a diabetes lipidomics study and summarize the divergent lipid pathways observed in T1D and T2D.

Lipidomics Analysis Workflow

Lipid Pathways in Diabetes Types

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful lipidomics studies rely on a suite of specialized reagents and materials. The following table details key solutions used in the featured experiments.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example from Search Results
Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) System	High-resolution separation, detection, and quantification of thousands of lipid species from complex biological samples.	UHPLC system coupled to Q Exactive Focus MS [16]; 6546 LC/Q-TOF [23]
Chromatography Columns	Separate lipid molecules based on hydrophobicity prior to mass spectrometry analysis.	Reversed-phase C18 columns (e.g., Hypersil GOLD, Acquity Premier BEH C18) [23] [16]
Mass Spectrometry Internal Standards (IS)	Critical for accurate lipid quantification; correct for variability in sample preparation and instrument response.	Deuterated or odd-chain lipid standards (e.g., Splash iSTDs, CUDA) added during extraction [23]
Lipid Extraction Solvents	Precipitate proteins and efficiently extract a broad range of lipid molecules from plasma/serum.	Mixtures of isopropanol, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, and water [23] [16]
Mobile Phase Additives	Enhance ionization efficiency and control analyte separation in the LC column.	Ammonium formate, ammonium acetate, and formic acid [16]
Data Processing Software	Convert raw MS data into identified and quantified lipid species; perform statistical analysis.	MS-DIAL, Compound Discoverer, XCMS, and lipidomeR package in R [10] [23] [58]
Cytokine Profiling Kits	Multiplexed immunoassays to correlate lipidomic findings with inflammatory markers.	MILLIPLEX MAP human cytokine panels (Luminex platform) [58]

A critical challenge in comparative lipidomics research on Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is the effective management of confounding factors. Variables such as medication, diet, body composition, and coexisting health conditions can significantly alter the lipid landscape, potentially obscuring true disease-specific signatures. This guide objectively compares methodological approaches for managing these confounders, supported by experimental data and detailed protocols from recent studies.

Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, provides a powerful lens to understand the distinct pathophysiologies of T1D and T2D. However, the integrity of these comparisons hinges on rigorous experimental design that accounts for key confounders:

• Pharmacological Interventions: Lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic drugs directly alter lipid metabolism.
• Body Composition: Body Mass Index (BMI) and fat mass are primary drivers of systemic lipid profiles.
• Comorbidities: Conditions like hypertension and dyslipidemia introduce their own lipidemic disturbances.
• Lifestyle Factors: Diet and physical activity levels have a profound, yet often variable, impact on the lipidome.

Failure to properly adjust for these factors can lead to the misattribution of effects, conflating disease-specific signatures with those of associated conditions or treatments. The following sections detail how contemporary studies manage these variables, providing a comparative framework for research and drug development.

Methodological Approaches for Confounder Adjustment

Statistical Adjustment in Multivariate Models

The most prevalent strategy involves measuring potential confounders and statistically adjusting for them during data analysis.

Experimental Protocol: Linear Regression Modeling A 2024 study exemplifies this approach in its comparison of T1D, T2D, prediabetes, and control subjects [2].

• Sample Preparation: Serum samples were collected from fasting subjects. Lipids were extracted using 50 µL of serum mixed with 150 µL of LC-MS grade isopropanol, vortexed, centrifuged (22,000 g, 20 min, 4°C), and the supernatant was analyzed [2].
• LC-MS Analysis: Lipid profiling was performed using Ultra-high Performance Liquid Chromatography-Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS) in both positive and negative ion modes. A Hypersil GOLD column with a gradient elution of acetonitrile/water and propan-2-ol based mobile phases was used [2].
• Statistical Adjustment: Multiple linear regression models were used to assess the association between each lipid feature and diabetic condition. The models were adjusted for a comprehensive set of covariates: sex, age, hypertension, dyslipidemia, BMI, glucose, smoking, systolic blood pressure, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, alternate Mediterranean diet score (aMED), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). When comparing T1D and T2D, diabetes duration and HbA1c were also included [2].

Supporting Data: This methodology revealed that lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) were upregulated in T1D but downregulated in T2D, while ceramides showed the opposite pattern—findings that may have been masked without extensive adjustment [2].

Study Design-Based Control through Cohort Matching

An alternative or complementary approach is to control for confounders at the study design stage through careful participant selection and matching.

Experimental Protocol: Matched Cohort Design A 2024 study investigating the effect of combined training on the lipidome utilized a within-participant longitudinal design with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to manage confounders [63].

• Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Participants were included based on sedentary lifestyle, specific BMI ranges, and glycemic status (e.g., T2D diagnosis based on fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL and/or HbA1c ≥ 6.5%). Key exclusion criteria included coronary artery disease, severe hypertension, insulin therapy (for T2D group), thyroid disorders, smoking, and use of specific medications like thiazolidinediones, β-blockers, anticoagulants, or anti-inflammatories [63].
• Dietary Monitoring: To control for dietary variation, researchers used 24-hour dietary recalls on three non-consecutive days. A nutritionist analyzed the records using DietPro Lite software, and participants were instructed to maintain their habitual diet throughout the study [63].
• Pharmacological Control: Participants were instructed to maintain the same dosage of any permitted medications (e.g., lipid-lowering or hypertensive drugs) for the study's duration [63].

Supporting Data: This controlled design demonstrated that exercise alone, without dietary intervention, could remodel the lipid metabolism in obesity and T2D, reducing saturated fatty acids in sphingolipids and glycerophospholipids while increasing polyunsaturated fatty acids [63].

Comparative Data on Lipidomic Signatures

The table below synthesizes key lipidomic findings from recent studies that employed rigorous confounder management, highlighting distinct and shared signatures between T1D and T2D.

Table 1: Comparison of Lipidomic Signatures in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	Specific Lipid	Change in T1D	Change in T2D	Associated Confounders Adjusted	Study Reference
Lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC)	Multiple Species (e.g., LPC(18:0))	Up-regulated [2]	Down-regulated [2] [64]	Age, Sex, BMI, Hypertension, Diet, Lipids [2] [64]	[2]
Ceramide (Cer)	Cer(d18:1/24:0); 1-deoxyceramides	Down-regulated [2]	Up-regulated [2] [65]; Gradual increase from prediabetes [2]	Age, Sex, BMI, Hypertension, Medication, Diet [2] [65]	[2] [65]
Phosphatidylcholine (PC)	PC(36:4); PC(36:5)	Down-regulated [2] [10]	Not Consistently Reported	Age, Sex, BMI, Blood Pressure [2]	[2] [10]
Sphingomyelin (SM)	SM(d18:1/24:0); SM(d18:1/16:1)	Down-regulated prior to onset [66]	Up-regulated [65]	HLA Genotype, Gender, Birth Period [66]	[65] [66]
Diacylglycerol (DG)	Multiple Species	Not Consistently Reported	Up-regulated; Reduced by dietary intervention [48]	Weight Loss, Diet [48]	[48]

Signaling Pathways in Diabetes Lipidomics

The dysregulated lipid species identified in these studies are not merely biomarkers but active players in critical metabolic and dysfunctional pathways. The following diagram synthesizes the primary lipid-related pathways implicated in diabetes pathology, as revealed by lipidomic studies.

Diagram Title: Key Lipid-Mediated Pathways in Diabetes Pathophysiology

The diagram illustrates a vicious cycle where lipid perturbations, driven by genetic and environmental factors, activate specific signaling pathways that exacerbate metabolic dysfunction. Ceramides, often elevated in T2D, promote insulin resistance by disrupting the insulin signaling cascade and contribute to β-cell apoptosis via induction of endoplasmic reticulum stress [63]. Diacylglycerols (DAGs), also associated with T2D, activate various Protein Kinase C (PKC) isoforms, which further impair insulin signaling [63]. Conversely, decreases in certain lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs), which have anti-inflammatory properties, may contribute to a pro-inflammatory state [64]. This interplay between specific lipid classes and cellular pathways highlights potential therapeutic targets for drug development.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful execution of a confounder-controlled lipidomics study requires a specific set of high-quality reagents and instruments. The following table details key solutions used in the cited experiments.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Diabetes Lipidomics

Reagent / Material	Function in Workflow	Exemplar Specification / Brand
UHPLC-MS System	High-resolution separation and accurate mass detection of complex lipid mixtures.	Dionex UltiMate 3000 RSLC coupled to Q Exactive Focus MS [2]; Waters ACQUITY UPLC with AB SCIEX TripleTOF 5500 [67].
Chromatography Column	Separation of individual lipid species based on hydrophobicity.	Hypersil GOLD C18 column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.9 µm) [2]; ACQUITY BEH C8 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm) [67].
LC-MS Grade Solvents	Lipid extraction and mobile phase preparation; critical for minimizing background noise.	Isopropanol, Acetonitrile, Methanol, Chloroform, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) [2] [67].
Internal Standards	Quality control, calibration, and quantification of lipid species.	Synthetic lipid standards (e.g., SM(d18:1/17:0), Cer(d18:1/17:0), PE(17:0/17:0)) [66].
Statistical Software	Multivariate statistical analysis and confounder adjustment.	R Statistics software [2] [64], MetaboAnalyst 5.0 online platform [67].

The pursuit of definitive lipidomic signatures in T1D and T2D is fundamentally a challenge of confounding factor management. As evidenced by the cited research, robust findings require a multi-pronged strategy that combines careful cohort design with sophisticated statistical adjustment for medication, diet, BMI, and comorbidities. The consistent identification of ceramides and lysophosphatidylcholines as key discriminatory lipids across studies that employ these rigorous methods underscores their biological significance and potential as therapeutic targets or diagnostic aids. For the drug development professional, these methodological considerations are paramount in validating lipid-related biomarkers and designing clinical trials for novel metabolic therapies.

In comparative lipidomics research for Type 1 (T1D) and Type 2 Diabetes (T2D), the reliability of biological findings is fundamentally dependent on the robustness of the underlying technical data. The lipidome's complexity, coupled with its dynamic role in diabetes pathophysiology, demands rigorous analytical workflows to distinguish true biological signals from technical artifacts. This guide provides a comparative evaluation of sample preparation methods, advanced batch effect correction strategies, and quality control (QC) frameworks essential for generating high-quality, reproducible lipidomics data. The integration of these optimized protocols ensures that subtle, disease-specific lipid alterations—such as those between T1D and T2D—can be detected with high confidence, directly supporting biomarker discovery and mechanistic studies.

Sample Preparation: Methodologies and Comparative Performance

The initial step of sample preparation is critical, as it dictates the depth and accuracy of the subsequent lipidomic analysis. Inappropriate handling can lead to lipid degradation or loss, particularly for oxidation-prone or signaling lipids relevant to diabetic metabolic dysregulation.

Core Principles and Protocols

A primary concern during sample collection is the prevention of artificial lipid degradation. Samples should be processed immediately or flash-frozen and stored at -80°C to halt enzymatic activity, as the concentrations of lipids like lysophosphatidylcholine (LPC) can artificially increase if samples are left at room temperature [68]. Homogenization is another vital step, especially for tissue samples; methods like shear-force grinding (Potter-Elvehjem homogenizer) or bead milling ensure equal solvent accessibility to lipids from all tissue parts, preventing distorted lipid profiles [68].

Liquid-liquid extraction remains the most widely used technique for lipid isolation. The core principles of these protocols are compared below:

• Folch Method: This classic protocol uses a chloroform/methanol/water mixture (in a 8:4:3 ratio) where lipids are recovered from the lower organic chloroform phase [68].
• Bligh & Dyer Method: A similar chloroform-based system but with a different solvent ratio (chloroform/methanol/water, 1:2:0.8) designed for samples with high water content [68].
• MTBE Method: This protocol uses methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, and water (in a 10:3:2.5 ratio). A key advantage is that the lipid-containing organic MTBE phase forms the upper layer, making it easier and safer to pipette than the lower chloroform layer [68].
• BUME Method: A fully automated, high-throughput protocol for 96-well plates that uses a butanol/methanol mixture followed by heptane/ethyl acetate. It avoids hazardous chloroform and is designed for efficiency [68].
• One-Step Extraction: Simple protocols that involve adding a single organic solvent (e.g., methanol or 2-propanol) to precipitate proteins. While fast and robust, they result in increased non-lipid compounds in the extract, which can lead to greater ion suppression during MS analysis [68].

Comparative Analysis of Extraction Methods

The choice of extraction method significantly impacts lipid coverage and recovery, influencing downstream results. The following table provides a structured comparison to guide protocol selection for diabetes lipidomics studies.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Common Lipid Extraction Methods

Extraction Method	Key Solvents	Relative Efficiency (by Lipid Category)	Primary Advantages	Primary Limitations
Folch [68]	Chloroform, Methanol, Water	High for most lipid classes; superior for saturated fatty acids and plasmalogens [68]	Considered a gold standard; high reproducibility	Chloroform is hazardous; lower organic phase is harder to access
Bligh & Dyer [68]	Chloroform, Methanol, Water	Comparable to Folch; optimized for wet tissues	Effective for samples with high water content	Uses hazardous chloroform; requires careful phase ratio adjustment
MTBE [68]	MTBE, Methanol, Water	Superior for glycerophospholipids, ceramides, and unsaturated fatty acids [68]	Safer than chloroform; easier pipetting (upper organic phase)	Less efficient for saturated fatty acids compared to Folch [68]
BUME [68]	Butanol, Methanol, Heptane, Ethyl Acetate	Comparable to Folch protocol [68]	Fully automatable; high-throughput; chloroform-free	Requires specialized automation equipment
One-Step (e.g., 2-Propanol) [68]	2-Propanol, Methanol, or Acetonitrile	Higher for polar lipids (LPC, LPI, S1P, bile acids) [68]	Extremely fast and simple; good for polar lipids	Increased ion suppression from co-extracted compounds; less clean extract

Batch Effect Correction and Quality Control Strategies

In large-scale lipidomics studies, such as those comparing T1D and T2D cohorts across multiple batches, technical variability is inevitable. Proactive quality control and post-hoc batch effect correction are non-negotiable for ensuring data integrity.

Quality Control (QC) Frameworks

A robust QC strategy involves the continuous monitoring of analytical performance throughout the data acquisition sequence. This is typically achieved by regularly injecting standardized QC samples. Two prominent approaches exist:

• Pooled Quality Control (PQC): A pooled sample is created from a small aliquot of every study sample. This QC reflects the average composition of the entire sample set and is used to monitor and correct for instrumental drift over the sequence [69].
• Surrogate Quality Control (sQC) / Commercial Reference Materials: The use of commercial reference plasma as a long-term reference (LTR) has been evaluated as a surrogate for pooled study samples. This approach provides a standardized, readily available material for inter-laboratory and longitudinal studies, helping to align data across different batches and platforms [69].

Furthermore, adherence to formal validation guidance, such as the FDA Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance for Industry, ensures rigorous quantitation. This includes using calibration curves and preset acceptance criteria for QC samples, a practice that has been successfully implemented in targeted lipidomics, resulting in inter-assay variability below 25% for over 700 lipid species in NIST-SRM-1950 plasma [70].

Batch Effect Correction Methods

Batch effects are systematic technical variations that can confound biological results if left uncorrected. The following workflow outlines the process from detection to correction.

Several statistical methods have been developed to correct for these effects. The selection of an appropriate method depends on the study design and the nature of the data.

• Combat: Utilizes an empirical Bayes framework to adjust for known batch variables. It is highly effective for structured data where batch information is clearly defined but may struggle with non-linear effects [71].
• limma removeBatchEffect: Applies linear modeling to remove batch effects when batch variables are known. It is efficient and integrates well with differential analysis workflows but assumes the effect is additive [71].
• SVA (Surrogate Variable Analysis): Estimates and removes hidden sources of variation (unobserved batch effects). This is useful when batch variables are unknown but carries a risk of accidentally removing biological signal if not carefully modeled [71].
• SERRF (Systematic Error Removal using Random Forest): A QC-based correction that uses a random forest model trained on the pooled QC samples to non-linearly model and remove systematic errors across the acquisition batch [72].
• NIST-Based Batch Effect Removal: An approach that leverages standardized reference materials, such as NIST-SRM-1950 plasma, to align data and remove inter-batch variability, improving cross-laboratory reproducibility [72].

Comparative Performance of Correction Tools

The effectiveness of batch effect correction must be validated using both visualizations and quantitative metrics. The table below summarizes the characteristics of popular tools.

Table 2: Comparison of Batch Effect Correction Methods for Lipidomics Data

Method	Underlying Principle	Requires Known Batch Info?	Strengths	Limitations
Combat [71]	Empirical Bayes	Yes	Simple, widely adopted, effective for known batches	Less flexible for non-linear effects
limma removeBatchEffect [71]	Linear Modeling	Yes	Fast, integrates with differential expression workflows	Assumes additive, known batch effects
SVA [71]	Surrogate Variable Analysis	No	Captures hidden batch effects	Risk of over-correction and removing biology
SERRF [72]	Random Forest (QC-based)	Yes (via QC samples)	Powerful non-linear correction	Requires high-quality, consistently measured QC samples
NIST-Based Alignment [72]	Standard Reference Material	Implicit via standard	Enhances inter-laboratory reproducibility	Dependent on the consistency of the reference material

Experimental Protocols for Key Workflows

Protocol: Multiplexed Targeted Lipidomics with QA

This protocol, adapted from a validated targeted lipidomics assay, is suitable for precise quantification of a predefined panel of lipids, such as monitoring known lipid biomarkers in diabetic plasma [70].

• Sample Preparation:

  • Internal Standard Addition: Spike a known amount of stable isotope-labeled (SIL) internal standard mixture into each plasma sample (e.g., 10-50 µL) to correct for extraction efficiency and matrix effects [70].
  • Lipid Extraction: Perform a liquid-liquid extraction using the MTBE method. Add MTBE and methanol to the sample, vortex, and then add water to induce phase separation. Centrifuge and collect the upper (organic) layer containing the lipids [70] [68].
  • Solvent Evaporation: Evaporate the organic solvent under a gentle stream of nitrogen.
  • Reconstitution: Reconstitute the dried lipid extract in a suitable LC-MS solvent (e.g., 2-propanol/acetonitrile) [70].

• LC-MS/MS Analysis:

  • Chromatography: Utilize a multiplexed Normal Phase Liquid Chromatography-Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography (NPLC/HILIC) system with a 20-minute gradient to separate lipids by class [70].
  • Mass Spectrometry: Use a triple quadrupole (QqQ) mass spectrometer operating in Scheduled Multiple Reaction Monitoring (MRM) mode.
  • Ion Transitions: For each target lipid, monitor specific precursor-to-product ion transitions. Utilize multiple MS/MS product ions per species to improve identification confidence and determine relative abundances of positional isomers [70].

• Data Processing and QA:

  • Calibration Curves: Generate lipid class-based calibration curves using authentic standards to interpolate concentrations [70].
  • Quality Control: Interpolate QC samples against the calibration curve. Adhere to preset acceptance criteria (e.g., inter-assay variability <15-25%) as per FDA Bioanalytical Method Validation Guidance [70].

Protocol: Untargeted Lipidomics with Ion Mobility

This protocol is designed for comprehensive, discovery-oriented lipidomics, ideal for uncovering novel lipid disparities between T1D and T2D [73] [74].

• Sample Preparation:

  • Follow a similar extraction procedure as in Protocol 4.1 (e.g., MTBE or Folch). For untargeted work, it is critical to use a consistent sample-to-solvent ratio across all samples to enable relative comparison [68].
  • Incorporate a pooled QC sample by combining a small aliquot of every sample in the study. This QC is crucial for monitoring performance and correcting batch effects later.

• LC-IM-MS/MS Analysis:

  • Chromatography: Employ a C18 reversed-phase column for separation based on acyl chain hydrophobicity, or a HILIC column for class-based separation [74].
  • Ion Mobility: Integrate a high-resolution ion mobility spectrometer (e.g., DTIMS, TWIMS, TIMS) between the LC and MS. This adds a fourth dimension of separation (collision cross-section, CCS), resolving isomeric and isobaric lipids that co-elute in LC-MS alone [73].
  • Mass Spectrometry: Use a high-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q-TOF, Orbitrap). Acquire data in data-dependent acquisition (DDA) mode, where the top N most intense ions from the full scan are selected for fragmentation and IMS separation [74].

• Data Processing and Annotation:

  • Feature Detection: Use software tools like XCMS for peak picking, alignment, and integration across all samples [74].
  • Lipid Annotation: Annotate lipid features by matching accurate mass, retention time, MS/MS spectra, and CCS values (a stable physicochemical property from IMS) against databases like Lipid Maps and HMDB. The addition of CCS values significantly increases annotation confidence [73] [74].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key materials and reagents essential for implementing the optimized lipidomics workflows described in this guide.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Lipidomics

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Stable Isotope Labeled (SIL) Internal Standards [70]	Correct for extraction losses, ion suppression, and instrumental drift; enable absolute quantification.	Select standards representative of lipid classes of interest (e.g., ¹³C-PC 16:0/18:1). Availability and cost can be limiting factors [70].
NIST-SRM-1950 Metabolites in Frozen Human Plasma [70]	Standardized reference material for method qualification, inter-laboratory comparison, and batch effect correction.	Provides a well-characterized benchmark for assessing analytical performance and aligning data across studies [70] [72].
Commercial Lipid Standards (e.g., from Avanti Polar Lipids) [70]	Used to build calibration curves for targeted quantification and to optimize MS parameters (e.g., collision energy).	Necessary for achieving absolute concentration data. A wide panel is needed for comprehensive class coverage.
Pooled Quality Control (PQC) Sample [69] [72]	A quality control material created from the study's own samples, used to monitor instrument stability and correct for analytical drift.	Must be prepared from a representative subset of all study samples to accurately reflect the overall lipidome.
LC-MS Grade Solvents (Chloroform, MTBE, Methanol, 2-Propanol) [70] [68]	Used for lipid extraction and mobile phase preparation. High purity is required to minimize background noise and contamination.	MTBE is a safer alternative to chloroform. Solvent lot consistency helps reduce variability.

Cross-Population Validation and Comparative Pathophysiology Insights

The pathophysiology of diabetes manifests through distinct molecular mechanisms across racial groups, creating critical disparities in disease presentation, diagnosis, and management. Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are both characterized by alterations in lipid metabolism and inflammatory pathways, yet population-specific studies reveal that these biological signatures are not uniform. Comparative lipidomics—the large-scale study of cellular lipid networks—now provides unprecedented resolution to characterize these racially divergent disease manifestations. Emerging evidence demonstrates that White and African American populations exhibit fundamentally different lipid-inflammatory axes in diabetes, challenging the universality of standard diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets. This biological divergence occurs within a context where diabetes disproportionately affects African American populations, yet clinical diagnostics predominantly rely on biomarkers discovered and validated in White cohorts [75] [58].

The integration of lipidomics within diabetes research has revealed that circulating levels of specific lipid molecules change before clinical onset of both T1DM and T2DM, offering potential for early risk stratification [76]. However, the translation of these findings to clinical practice requires acknowledging that the pathophysiological signatures of diabetes are not uniform across populations. This review synthesizes evidence from recent comparative studies that validate racial disparities in diabetic lipid-inflammatory pathways, providing a framework for developing more equitable precision medicine approaches to diabetes care.

Comparative Analysis of Racial Divergence in Diabetic Phenotypes

White versus African American Diabetes Presentations: Distinct Molecular Signatures

Recent well-controlled studies have revealed strikingly different molecular presentations of diabetes between White and African American individuals. These differences persist even when controlling for age, body mass index, poverty status, and statin use [58] [77] [78].

Table 1: Comparative Clinical Parameters in Diabetes by Racial Group

Clinical Parameter	White Individuals with Diabetes	African American Individuals with Diabetes	Statistical Significance
Cholesterol:HDL Ratio	Significantly elevated	Minimal elevation	p = 0.0053 [77] [78]
Triglycerides	Significantly elevated	Minimal elevation	Validated in large cohort (N=17,339) [58]
hs-CRP	Significantly elevated (classical inflammation)	Not significantly elevated	p = 0.0040 [77] [78]
Th17-related Cytokines	Not predominant signature	Significantly elevated	Characteristic inflammatory profile [75] [58]

The HANDLS study subcohort (N=40) and validation in the AllofUs cohort (N=17,339) demonstrated that White individuals with diabetes exhibit elevated cholesterol to HDL ratios, triglycerides, and classical inflammatory markers such as high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). In contrast, African American individuals with diabetes displayed minimal lipid elevations but showed increased Th17-related cytokines [75] [58]. These differences were independent of statin use, age, and body mass index. Additionally, correlations between lipid to cytokine ratios and the glycemic marker hemoglobin A1C differed sharply by race, suggesting fundamentally different pathophysiological mechanisms operating across populations [58].

Lipoprotein(a) Variations Across Racial Groups

Beyond conventional lipid panels, significant racial differences exist in specialized lipid molecules with known cardiovascular implications. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an apoB100-containing lipoprotein with a unique glycoprotein, apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)], that has established associations with cardiovascular disease risk [79].

Table 2: Racial Differences in Lipoprotein(a) Levels and Characteristics

Racial Group	Lp(a) Levels	Key Genetic Features	Associated Risks
African Ancestry	Highest levels (43-99 mg/dL mean; 27-46 mg/dL median)	Lower heritability of apo(a) isoforms; regulated by KIV-2 domain	Possibly higher CVD risk, though studies are limited
White Populations	Intermediate levels	Higher heritability; well-studied KIV-2 genetic variations	Well-established CVD and aortic stenosis risk
East Asian Populations	Lower levels (1-13 mg/dL median)	Limited data	Possibly lower associated CVD risk
Hispanic Populations	Relatively low levels (14.9 mg/dL mean)	Limited studies available	Risk profile not well characterized

Lp(a) concentrations are genetically determined and highest in people of African ancestry, yet studies in minority populations remain significantly underrepresented in the literature [79]. This disparity in research focus creates critical gaps in our understanding of how these elevated levels translate to diabetes-related cardiovascular complications in African American populations.

Experimental Protocols for Racial Disparity Validation in Lipidomics

HANDLS Study Design and Participant Selection

The Healthy Aging in Neighborhoods of Diversity across the Life Span (HANDLS) study implemented a rigorous matched-pair design to isolate racial differences independent of confounding variables [58] [77]:

• Participant Recruitment: 40 participants were randomly selected and divided into four matched comparison groups (N=10 per group): White individuals without diabetes (NoDx-White), White individuals with diabetes (Dx-White), African American individuals without diabetes (NoDx-AA), and African American individuals with diabetes (Dx-AA)

• Matching Criteria: Groups were equally distributed by race, diabetes status, and sex, with each group matched by age, body mass index (BMI), and poverty status

• Exclusion Criteria: To minimize comorbidity impact, exclusion included patients ever diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, cancer, asthma, or psoriasis

• Diabetes Confirmation: Based on the absence of insulin use (36/40), 90% of the cohort had confirmed T2D

This carefully controlled design enabled researchers to distinguish race-specific biological signatures of diabetes from differences attributable to demographic or socioeconomic factors.

Targeted Lipidomics Using Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS)

The HANDLS study employed sophisticated lipidomic profiling to characterize racial differences in lipid metabolism [58]:

• Metabolite Extraction: 300μL of -20°C isopropanol:lipidomics standard (1000:1) was added to 10μL of aliquoted plasma sample and incubated on ice for 10 minutes, followed by vortexing and centrifugation at 15,800 × g for 15 minutes at 4°C

• Sample Preparation: 400μL of the upper layer was transferred to a fresh tube and dried under a CentriVap system at -20°C, then reconstituted in 200μL of ACN:IPA solution (1:1, v/v)

• LC-MS Analysis: Plasma extracts were analyzed using a UPLC-ESI-MS/MS system (UPLC, ExionLC AD; MS, QTRAP 6500+ System)

  • Metabolites were analyzed using a quadruple-orbitrap mass spectrometer coupled to reverse-phase ion-pairing chromatography
  • Mass spectrometer operated in positive ion mode with resolving power of 140,000 at m/z 200 and scan range of m/z 290-1200
  • Utilized Atlantis T3 column (150 mm × 2.1 mm, 3 μm particle size) with gradient of solvent A and B

• Data Processing: Lipidomics data analysis was performed with Compound Discover and MAVEN software

This protocol enabled identification and quantification of hundreds of lipid species across multiple classes, providing the comprehensive lipidomic profiling necessary to characterize racially distinct diabetic phenotypes.

Cytokine Profiling and Immune Phenotyping

Complementing lipidomic analyses, comprehensive inflammatory profiling captured racial differences in immune activation [58]:

• Multiplex Cytokine Assay:

  • 10μL of undiluted plasma was evaluated in 384-well plates using MILLIPLEX MAP human kits Cytokine/Chemokine/Growth Factor Panel and Th17 5-plex
  • 53 cytokines per sample were assayed with all reagents used at 10μL adjusted to 384 well format
  • Samples were read using xMAP INTELLIFLEX System (Luminex) with Belysa Immunoassay Curve Fitting Software for analysis

• Immune Cell Phenotyping:

  • Leukocyte populations were phenotyped in PBMCs with 23 markers
  • PBMCs were stained with live/dead stain Zombie NIR for 20 minutes
  • Cells were washed with FACS buffer and stained with surface antibody master mix diluted in Brilliant Stain Buffer

This multi-modal approach enabled researchers to correlate specific lipid patterns with distinct inflammatory profiles across racial groups.

Visualization of Divergent Lipid-Inflammatory Axes

Experimental Workflow for Racial Disparity Lipidomics

The comprehensive experimental design integrating multiple analytical platforms provides a robust framework for validating racial disparities in diabetic lipid-inflammatory axes:

Racial Divergence in Diabetic Pathophysiology

The mechanistic pathways through which diabetes manifests differently across racial groups involve distinct lipid and inflammatory signatures:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Lipid-Inflammatory Diabetes Research

Reagent/Platform	Specific Application	Function in Research
Q-Exactive Plus Quadrupole-Orbitrap MS	Targeted lipidomics	High-resolution mass spectrometry for lipid identification and quantification
Atlantis T3 Column (150 mm × 2.1 mm, 3 μm)	Liquid chromatography separation	Reverse-phase ion-pairing chromatography for lipid separation prior to MS
MILLIPLEX MAP Human Cytokine/Chemokine/Growth Factor Panel	Multiplex cytokine profiling	Simultaneous measurement of 53 cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors
xMAP INTELLIFLEX System (Luminex)	Cytokine detection	Multiplex bead-based immunoassay platform for high-throughput cytokine profiling
MTBE:MeOH (3:1, v/v) solvent system	Lipid extraction	Efficient extraction of diverse lipid classes from plasma samples
Zombie NIR Viability Dye	Flow cytometry	Live/dead cell discrimination in immune phenotyping experiments
Brilliant Stain Buffer	Flow cytometry	Compensation of spectral overlap in high-parameter flow cytometry panels
Compound Discover Software	Lipidomics data analysis	Comprehensive platform for processing and analyzing LC-MS lipidomics data

Implications for Diabetes Research and Therapeutic Development

The validated racial disparities in lipid-inflammatory axes have profound implications for both basic research and clinical applications in diabetes. First, the findings challenge the universal application of standard diabetes biomarkers, suggesting that diagnostic criteria may need population-specific refinement. The predominant focus on lipid parameters for diabetes risk assessment may be particularly problematic for African American patients, whose diabetic presentation may feature preserved lipid profiles but prominent Th17-mediated inflammation [58] [77].

For therapeutic development, these disparities highlight the necessity of population-specific treatment strategies. Drugs targeting lipid metabolism may show differential efficacy across racial groups, while interventions modulating Th17 pathways may hold particular promise for addressing diabetes in African American populations. Furthermore, clinical trial design must prioritize adequate representation of diverse populations to ensure that therapeutic benefits are accurately characterized across these distinct pathophysiological presentations.

The integration of comparative lipidomics with inflammatory profiling provides a powerful framework for advancing precision medicine approaches to diabetes care. By moving beyond one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms, researchers and clinicians can develop more equitable and effective strategies that acknowledge the fundamental biological differences in how diabetes manifests across human populations.

The emerging field of lipidomics has revolutionized our understanding of diabetes pathophysiology by revealing profound alterations in lipid metabolism that differ significantly between type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), as well as between males and females. Comparative lipidomics provides a powerful analytical framework for identifying these sex-dimorphic patterns, offering new insights into the distinct molecular mechanisms driving diabetes progression and its complications. While traditional diabetes management has primarily focused on glycemic control, contemporary research demonstrates that lipidome dysregulation constitutes an independent pathological pathway that contributes substantially to diabetes-related complications [2]. The investigation of sex-specific lipid signatures has become particularly crucial as epidemiological evidence consistently reveals that women with diabetes lose their inherent cardiovascular protection and face higher relative risks for certain complications compared to men [80].

Advanced mass spectrometry technologies have enabled researchers to characterize hundreds of lipid species simultaneously, revealing complex alterations in lipid metabolism that precede and accompany diabetes progression. These lipidomic signatures not only serve as potential biomarkers for disease risk and progression but also reveal fundamental biological differences in how males and females regulate lipid metabolism under diabetic conditions. Understanding these sex-dimorphic patterns is essential for developing targeted, sex-specific interventions that address the unique metabolic challenges faced by men and women with diabetes [2] [80] [81]. This comparative guide systematically evaluates the current evidence regarding sex-specific lipid alterations in T1D and T2D, with particular emphasis on methodological approaches, key lipid classes affected, and implications for complication management.

Experimental Protocols and Methodological Approaches

Core Analytical Techniques in Diabetes Lipidomics

Diabetes lipidomics research employs several sophisticated analytical platforms, each with specific protocols and applications. The predominant methodology involves liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS), which provides high sensitivity and specificity for lipid identification and quantification. The foundational protocol begins with sample preparation using organic solvents such as isopropanol for protein precipitation and lipid extraction, followed by analysis using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (UHPLC-ESI-MS) in both positive and negative ion modes to capture the broadest possible range of lipid species [2]. For targeted analysis of specific lipid classes, LC-triple quadrupole-MS (LC-QQQ-MS) provides enhanced quantification capabilities through multiple reaction monitoring, as demonstrated in aging studies involving over 1,000 participants [82].

Alternative approaches include nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, which has been deployed in large cohort studies like the UK Biobank and MESA to analyze plasma metabolic features in nearly 100,000 participants. While NMR offers advantages for high-throughput clinical applications and provides information on lipoprotein subclasses, it generally offers lower sensitivity and less structural detail compared to MS-based methods [80]. The technical specifications for each method are detailed in Table 1, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations for diabetes lipidomics research.

Table 1: Core Analytical Techniques in Diabetes Lipidomics Research

Technique	Resolution	Throughput	Key Applications	Representative Cohort Size
UHPLC-ESI-MS (Untargeted)	High	Moderate	Discovery phase, novel lipid identification	360 subjects [2]
LC-QQQ-MS (Targeted)	High	High	Quantitative analysis of predefined lipid panels	1,030 subjects [82]
NMR Spectroscopy	Moderate	Very High	Large cohort screening, lipoprotein subclass analysis	97,271 subjects [80]
UPLC-QTOF-MS	High	Moderate	Structural characterization, unknown identification	841 subjects [83]

Cohort Selection and Study Design Considerations

Robust experimental design in diabetes lipidomics requires careful cohort characterization with appropriate sample sizes to detect sex-specific effects. Studies typically employ case-control designs matched for key covariates such as age, BMI, and glycemic control. For instance, one comprehensive analysis included 91 T1D patients, 91 T2D patients, 74 with prediabetes, and 104 controls, with all groups matched by sex and BMI [2]. Larger cohort studies, such as the analysis of 3,000 Asian Indians, provide greater statistical power for identifying population-specific and sex-dimorphic patterns [81].

Critical methodological considerations include standardized sample collection after an overnight fast to minimize dietary influences, immediate processing of blood samples with EDTA tubes, and storage at -80°C until analysis to preserve lipid stability. To control for technical variability, studies typically incorporate randomized batch analysis with quality control pools representing all samples [2]. Statistical analyses employ multiple linear regression models adjusted for potential confounders including sex, age, hypertension, dyslipidemia, BMI, glucose, smoking, blood pressure, lipid parameters, dietary patterns, and kidney function. For diabetes-specific comparisons, additional adjustments for diabetes duration and HbA1c are essential [2].

Sex-Dimorphic Lipid Alterations in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Comparative Lipidomics of T1D versus T2D

Comprehensive lipidomic profiling reveals fundamental differences in lipid metabolism between T1D and T2D, with lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs) and ceramides (Cer) showing particularly divergent patterns. In a detailed analysis of 360 subjects, LPCs were predominantly upregulated in T1D but downregulated in T2D, while ceramides demonstrated the opposite pattern—increased in T2D but decreased in T1D [2]. Additionally, phosphatidylcholines (PCs) were markedly downregulated in T1D subjects, suggesting distinct membrane lipid remodeling processes in different diabetes subtypes. These differential alterations highlight the necessity of considering diabetes type when interpreting lipidomic data and designing targeted interventions.

The progression from normoglycemia to diabetes also exhibits lipid-specific patterns, with certain lipid species showing gradual changes across the glycemic spectrum. Notably, a panel of 1-deoxyceramides demonstrated a stepwise increase from normoglycemia to prediabetes to established T2D, suggesting their potential role as biomarkers for diabetes progression and early intervention targets [2]. These findings underscore the importance of longitudinal study designs that can capture temporal relationships between lipid changes and disease progression.

Sex-Specific Lipidome Alterations

Robust evidence from multiple studies confirms that sexual dimorphism significantly influences diabetes-related lipid alterations. In T2D, women exhibit more pronounced pro-atherogenic lipid profiles characterized by elevated triglycerides, saturated fatty acids (SFA), and the inflammatory marker GlycA, along with reduced protective factors such as serum albumin and omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratios [80]. This pattern may partially explain the elevated cardiovascular risk observed in women with T2D, who lose the typical female advantage in coronary heart disease risk [80].

In T1D, sex-specific differences manifest in distinct lipid classes, with ceramides and phosphatidylcholines showing particularly prominent sex-dependent alterations [2]. The molecular basis for these sex differences appears to involve complex interactions between sex hormones, genetic factors, and environmental influences. Age-related lipid patterns further differ by sex, as demonstrated in a study of 3,000 Asian Indians where cholesterol sulfate and LPC 22:6 were elevated across all age groups in men, while women exhibited a rapid increase in LPC 22:6 after menopause [81]. Additionally, sphingomyelins increased in men after 40 years of age, suggesting age-dependent sexual dimorphism in sphingolipid metabolism [81].

Table 2: Sex-Dimorphic Lipid Alterations in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Lipid Class	T1D Alterations	T2D Alterations	Sex-Specific Patterns
Lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs)	Upregulated	Downregulated	LPC 22:6 increases post-menopause in women [81]
Ceramides (Cer)	Downregulated	Upregulated	Stronger association with female T2D; 1-deoxyceramide gradual increase from prediabetes [2]
Phosphatidylcholines (PCs)	Markedly downregulated	Variable	Sex-specific diabetes-associated differences [2]
Sphingomyelins (SM)	Not specified	Decreased [81]	Increase in men after age 40 [81]
Ether Phospholipids	Not specified	Not specified	Significant age-related decline, especially in men [82]
Triglycerides (TG)	Not specified	Elevated	More pronounced elevation in women with T2D [80]

Lipidomic Signatures of Diabetes Complications

Cardiovascular Complications

Lipidomic studies have revealed distinct sex-specific signatures associated with cardiovascular complications in diabetes. Women with T2D demonstrate particularly adverse atherogenic lipid profiles characterized by elevated concentrations of LDL-triglycerides and HDL-triglycerides, which reverse the normal gender advantage observed in nondiabetic women [80]. Additionally, saturated fatty acids (SFA) show a 22% greater increase in women with T2D compared to men, while the cardioprotective omega-6/omega-3 ratio is 9% lower [80]. These alterations create a "triple-hit" phenomenon in women with T2D—enhanced lipotoxicity, activated inflammation, and attenuated protective factors—which may explain their disproportionately elevated cardiovascular risk.

In the context of valvular heart disease, sex-specific lipid patterns are also evident. Patients with fibrocalcific aortic valve disease exhibit sexual dimorphism in lipid metabolism, with female patients accumulating more sphingolipids (including sphingomyelins and ceramides), while male patients predominantly display triglyceride metabolism alterations [84]. These differences parallel clinical phenotypic variations, with women tending toward fibrotic phenotypes and men toward calcific phenotypes, suggesting that lipid-mediated pathways may contribute to these sex-specific manifestations of valvular pathology [84].

Neurological and Renal Complications

Emerging evidence suggests that sex-specific lipid alterations may also contribute to neurological complications in diabetes, though this area requires further investigation. Insights from Alzheimer's disease research, which shares some pathological features with diabetic neurodegeneration, reveal that women with Alzheimer's disease exhibit more profound reductions in highly unsaturated lipids, including specific glycerolipids and glycerophospholipids, compared to men [83] [85]. These unsaturated lipid reductions correlate with cognitive decline and neuronal injury markers, suggesting potential parallels in diabetes-related cognitive impairment.

While the search results provided limited direct information about lipidomic signatures of diabetic kidney disease, one study adjusted for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in their lipidomic analysis, indicating recognition of renal function as a potential confounder in diabetes lipidomics [2]. Future studies specifically designed to examine lipid associations with diabetic nephropathy are needed to elucidate potential sex-specific patterns in renal complications.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Core Analytical Platforms and Reagents

• Ultra-high Performance Liquid Chromatography Systems (e.g., Dionex UltiMate 3000): Provides high-resolution separation of complex lipid mixtures prior to mass spectrometry analysis. Essential for resolving isobaric lipid species that would be indistinguishable by mass alone [2].

• High-Resolution Mass Spectrometers (e.g., Q Exactive Focus): Enables precise mass measurement and structural characterization of lipid species. The heated electrospray ionization (HESI) source efficiently ionizes a broad range of lipid classes [2].

• Chromatography Columns (e.g., Hypersil GOLD C18, 100×2.1mm, 1.9μm): Provides the stationary phase for reversed-phase separation of lipids based on hydrophobicity. The sub-2μm particle size enables high-resolution separations [2].

• Mobile Phase Components: LC-MS grade solvents and additives including acetonitrile, water, isopropanol, ammonium formate, and formic acid. Critical for optimal ionization efficiency and chromatographic performance [2].

• Lipid Extraction Solvents: High-purity isopropanol and other organic solvents for protein precipitation and lipid extraction from serum or plasma samples. Maintains lipid integrity while removing interfering proteins [2].

Specialized Reagents for Lipid Class Analysis

• Synthetic Lipid Standards: Isotopically labeled internal standards for absolute quantification of lipid species. Essential for correcting for ionization efficiency variations between lipid classes [82].

• * Enzyme-Based Lipid Tools (e.g., sphingomyelinase)*: Used to investigate specific lipid metabolic pathways and validate findings from observational studies [84].

• Fatty Acid Standards: Defined polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 and ω-6 series for calibration and method development. Particularly important given the alterations in essential FAs observed in diabetes [81].

Visualization of Lipid Metabolic Pathways in Diabetes

The following pathway diagrams illustrate key lipid metabolic alterations in diabetes progression and their sex-specific patterns.

Sex-Dimorphic Lipid Alterations in Diabetes Progression

Experimental Workflow in Diabetes Lipidomics Research

The comprehensive integration of lipidomic data reveals that sex-dimorphic patterns in lipid metabolism are fundamental features of both T1D and T2D, influencing disease progression, complication risk, and potentially treatment response. The consistent findings across multiple studies and populations underscore the necessity of sex-stratified analysis in diabetes research and the development of gender-specific therapeutic approaches. Future research directions should include larger longitudinal studies to establish temporal relationships between lipid alterations and diabetes progression, expanded exploration of lipidomic signatures in understudied complications such as neuropathies, and intervention trials testing lipid-targeting therapies in sex-specific manner.

The methodological advances in lipidomics, particularly the development of high-throughput platforms capable of analyzing thousands of samples, now enable the translation of these findings into clinical practice. Potential applications include the development of sex-specific lipid biomarkers for early detection of diabetes risk, stratification tools for complication prevention, and personalized treatment approaches based on individual lipidomic profiles. As the field progresses, integrating lipidomics with other omics technologies—including genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics—will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the complex metabolic networks underlying diabetes pathophysiology and its sexual dimorphism, ultimately leading to more effective, personalized approaches to diabetes management and complication prevention.

The rising global incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) presents a critical public health challenge, particularly with its emerging presence in pediatric populations. While T2DM pathophysiology shares common features across age groups, youth-onset T2DM demonstrates a more aggressive clinical course and is strongly preceded by obesity and metabolic syndrome (MetS) [86]. Understanding the distinct molecular signatures of early-onset T2DM is essential for developing age-specific diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Lipidomics, the large-scale study of lipid pathways and networks, has revealed profound disruptions in lipid metabolism associated with T2DM pathophysiology [87]. Recent evidence suggests that the lipidomic landscape of youth-onset T2DM differs substantially from adult-onset disease, with unique patterns of sphingolipids, phospholipids, and glycerolipids [86] [88]. Furthermore, growing research indicates a complex interplay between gut microbiota and host lipid metabolism, suggesting microbial contributions to metabolic dysregulation in T2DM [86] [89]. This review systematically compares the unique lipidomic features of youth-onset T2DM against adult-onset disease and explores their associations with gut microbiota alterations, providing a foundation for novel biomarker discovery and targeted interventions.

Clinical Context and Significance of Youth-Onset T2DM

Youth-onset T2DM represents an escalating global health concern linked to the pediatric obesity epidemic. Estimates indicate that by 2030, over 253 million children (aged 5-19 years) will have obesity, creating a substantial at-risk population for developing T2DM [86]. Unlike adult-onset T2DM, the pediatric variant follows an aggressive clinical course with accelerated development of comorbidities and higher rates of all-cause mortality [86]. This accelerated pathogenesis may reflect distinct molecular drivers, including unique lipidomic disruptions that differentiate pediatric from adult T2DM.

The diagnosis and management of youth-onset T2DM remain challenging due to limited pediatric-specific biomarkers and treatment guidelines, with most clinical practices adapted from adult standards [86]. The preceding metabolic syndrome in children shares pathophysiological features with adults, including abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia characterized by hypertriglyceridemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels [86] [89]. However, the molecular underpinnings, particularly lipidomic profiles and their relationship with gut microbiota, exhibit important age-specific characteristics that warrant detailed investigation.

Table 1: Clinical Characteristics of Pediatric and Adult T2DM Populations

Characteristic	Pediatric T2DM	Adult T2DM
Preceding Conditions	Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome	Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, Prediabetes
Clinical Course	Aggressive, rapid progression	Slower progression
Comorbidity Development	Accelerated	Typical for disease duration
Primary Intervention	Lifestyle modifications, Metformin [87]	Lifestyle, Metformin, multiple drug classes
Gut Microbiota Alterations	Increased Enterobacter, Weissella [86]	Distinct adult-specific dysbiosis patterns

Comparative Lipidomics: Pediatric vs. Adult T2DM

Lipidomic Alterations in Youth-Onset T2DM

Comprehensive lipidomic profiling of youth-onset T2DM has revealed distinct patterns that differentiate it from adult-onset disease. In pediatric populations, untargeted lipidomic analysis demonstrates increased levels of specific lipid classes including phosphocholines (15-18 species), phosphoinositols (2-3 species), sphingomyelins (2-3 species), and triglycerides (1-4 species) compared to healthy controls [86]. Conversely, plasmalogens (2-6 species) and lysophospholipids (1-2 species) are significantly decreased in children with T2DM and MetS [86]. These lipid classes demonstrate strong positive correlations with key metabolic risk factors including body mass index (BMI), waist and hip circumference, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, and HOMA-IR, suggesting their potential role as biomarkers for disease progression in pediatric populations.

Of particular significance in youth-onset T2DM is the behavior of ceramides, which are significantly elevated in both MetS and T2DM groups even after regression analysis adjusted for BMI, age, and sex [86]. This contrasts with the healthy pediatric population, where ceramides only increase with higher BMI, suggesting that ceramide dysregulation may be a core feature of metabolic disease in youth rather than simply a marker of adiposity. The specific ceramide species elevated in pediatric T2DM include Cer(d18:1/16:0), Cer(d18:1/18:0), Cer(d18:1/20:0), and Cer(d18:1/24:1) [2] [90].

Lipidomic Patterns in Adult-Onset T2DM

Adult T2DM exhibits a different lipidomic signature characterized by upregulation of free fatty acids (including essential FAs like arachidonic acid, EPA, and DHA) and lysophosphatidylcholines (LPCs), while sphingomyelin and phosphatidylcholines are generally decreased [44]. These patterns differ notably from pediatric observations, particularly regarding the direction of change in LPCs and specific sphingolipids. Adults with T2DM show sex-specific variations in their lipidomic profiles, with cholesterol sulfate and LPC 22:6 elevated across all age groups in men, while LPC 22:6 increases rapidly after menopause in women, and sphingomyelins increase in men after 40 years [44].

A comparative study of T1D and T2D in adults revealed that LPCs and ceramides show opposite effects in these conditions: LPCs are mainly up-regulated in T1D and down-regulated in T2D, while ceramides are up-regulated in T2D and down-regulated in T1D [2]. Additionally, phosphatidylcholines are clearly down-regulated in adults with T1D, suggesting distinct pathogenic mechanisms between diabetes types that also interact with age-specific factors.

Direct Comparative Analysis

A pilot study directly comparing childhood obesity (a primary precursor to youth-onset T2DM) with adult obesity revealed fundamental differences in circulating lipidomes and their response to intervention [88]. Following interventions (lifestyle changes for children, bariatric surgery for adults), the abundance of phosphatidylinositols significantly increased in the pediatric cohort while phosphatidylcholines significantly increased in adults [88]. Conversely, O-phosphatidylserines decreased in children while diacyl/triacylglycerols decreased in adults.

Despite these differences, the study identified fifteen lipid species that were consistently regulated in both groups after intervention, suggesting they may constitute a core circulating lipid profile signature indicative of obesity improvement regardless of age [88]. Five species (phosphatidylinositols, sphingomyelins, and cholesteryl esters) were upregulated, while eight species (diacylglycerols, glycerophosphoglycerols, glycerophosphoethanolamines, and phosphatidylcholines) were downregulated. Most matching species were regulated in the same direction except for two phosphatidylinositols: PI(O-36:2) and PI(O-34:0), highlighting both shared and distinct lipid metabolic pathways across age groups.

Table 2: Comparative Lipidomic Profiles in T2DM

Lipid Class	Pediatric T2DM	Adult T2DM	Biological Significance
Ceramides	Significantly increased [86]	Increased [2]	Insulin resistance, β-cell apoptosis
Sphingomyelins	Increased (2-3 species) [86]	Generally decreased [44]	Membrane integrity, signaling
Lysophospholipids	Decreased (1-2 species) [86]	Increased (LPCs) [44]	Inflammation, signaling
Phosphatidylcholines	Mixed changes	Decreased [44]	Membrane composition
Triglycerides	Increased (1-4 species) [86]	Variable	Energy storage, lipotoxicity
Phosphatidylinositols	Increased (2-3 species) [86]	Not prominently reported	Cell signaling

Figure 1: Pathophysiological Pathways in Youth vs. Adult T2DM. This diagram illustrates the shared and distinct pathways leading to T2DM in youth and adults, highlighting the role of lipidomic changes and gut microbiota interactions.

Gut Microbiota-Lipidome Interactions in T2DM

Pediatric Gut Microbiota Alterations

Emerging research has revealed substantial alterations in the gut microbiota of children with T2DM and MetS. Studies in Mexican pediatric subjects demonstrated that T2DM and MetS are associated with significant changes in gut microbiota at both genus and family levels [89]. Children with these conditions show increased abundance of Firmicutes (69% in MetS, 61% in T2DM) compared to controls (57%), with a corresponding decrease in Bacteroidetes (28% in MetS, 35% in T2DM vs. 41% in controls) [89]. This Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio differs from patterns typically observed in adult populations, suggesting age-specific dysbiosis.

At the genus level, read relative abundance of Faecalibacterium and Oscillospora was significantly higher in MetS, while an increasing trend of Prevotella and Dorea was observed from the control group toward T2DM [89]. These bacterial genera demonstrated positive correlations with hypertension, abdominal obesity, high glucose levels, and high triglyceride levels, indicating their potential contribution to cardiometabolic risk in pediatric populations.

Microbial-Lipidome Interactions

Integrative analyses have revealed specific connections between gut microbiota alterations and lipidomic changes in youth-onset T2DM. Significant positive correlations have been observed for phosphocholines and phosphoinositols with species from the phyla Pseudomonadota and Bacillota, including Weissella cibaria and Enterobacter hormaechei [86]. The latter species also shows significant correlation with ceramides, suggesting a potential microbial influence on sphingolipid metabolism that may contribute to insulin resistance and metabolic dysfunction [86].

Intervention studies demonstrate that gut microbiota modifications can directly impact lipid metabolism. In children with obesity undergoing lifestyle interventions, weight loss resulted in significant alterations in both gut microbiota and serum lipid levels [91]. Specifically, correlation analyses revealed a significant positive relationship between ChE(2:0) levels and both s-LachnospiraceaebacteriumTF09-5 and fasting glucose levels, while CoQ8 levels were significantly negatively correlated with s-Rothia_kristinae and HOMA-IR [91]. These findings suggest that gut microbiota may impact glucose metabolism through modulation of specific lipid species, providing a potential mechanistic link between microbial ecology and metabolic health.

Adult Gut Microbiota-Lipidome Interactions

While comparable studies in adults with T2DM are more limited, existing evidence suggests different patterns of microbiota-lipidome interactions. Adult gut microbiota demonstrates age-specific compositional differences that may interact differently with host lipid metabolism. The functional implications of these interactions, particularly regarding ceramide metabolism and insulin signaling, may differ substantially from pediatric patterns, though comparative research remains limited.

Experimental Methodologies in Lipidomics and Microbiome Research

Lipidomic Profiling Techniques

Untargeted lipidomic analysis represents the primary approach for comprehensive lipid profiling in T2DM research. The standard methodology involves liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) with electrospray ionization (ESI) in both positive and negative ion modes to capture the broadest possible range of lipid species [86] [2]. Typical protocols utilize reversed-phase C18 columns (e.g., Acquity Premier BEH C18, 50×2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) with gradient elution using acetonitrile/water and isopropanol/acetonitrile mobile phases modified with ammonium acetate and formic acid for positive mode or just ammonium acetate for negative mode [86].

Sample preparation follows standardized lipid extraction protocols, typically using methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)/methanol/water systems [86] or isopropanol precipitation [2] [28]. For quantitative accuracy, quality control samples are essential, typically using pooled samples from all participants with injection throughout the analytical sequence to monitor instrument performance [2]. Data processing employs specialized software such as MS-DIAL for peak detection, alignment, and annotation, with internal standards (e.g., SPLASH iSTDs) enabling semi-quantitative analysis [86].

Microbiome Analysis Methods

Gut microbiota characterization primarily utilizes 16S rDNA gene sequencing for taxonomic profiling, though some advanced studies employ whole-metagenome sequencing for functional insights [89] [91]. Standard protocols involve DNA extraction from stool samples, amplification of the 16S rRNA gene (V3-V4 hypervariable regions), and high-throughput sequencing on platforms such as Illumina [89]. Bioinformatic processing typically involves quality filtering, OTU (operational taxonomic unit) clustering, taxonomic assignment using reference databases (e.g., SILVA, Greengenes), and diversity analyses (α- and β-diversity metrics) [89].

Integrated multi-omics approaches combine lipidomic and microbiome data with clinical parameters to identify novel associations. These analyses employ correlation frameworks (Spearman correlation) and multivariate statistical methods (linear discriminant analysis, partial least squares discriminant analysis) to identify microbiome-lipidome relationships significantly associated with T2DM status and metabolic risk factors [86] [89].

Figure 2: Experimental Workflow for Integrated Lipidomic and Microbiome Studies. This diagram outlines the standard methodology for concurrent lipidomic and microbiome analysis in T2DM research.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms for Lipidomic and Microbiome Studies

Category	Specific Products/Platforms	Application in T2DM Research
Chromatography Systems	Ultra-high Performance Liquid Chromatography (UPLC) systems (e.g., Dionex UltiMate 3000, Shimadzu LC-20AXR)	Separation of complex lipid mixtures prior to mass spectrometry analysis [2] [90]
Mass Spectrometers	Quadrupole Time-of-Flight (QTOF) mass spectrometers (e.g., AB TripleTOF 5600+, Agilent 6546 LC/Q-TOF)	High-resolution mass analysis for lipid identification and quantification [86] [90]
Chromatography Columns	Reversed-phase C18 columns (e.g., Acquity Premier BEH C18, Hypersil GOLD)	Lipid separation based on hydrophobicity [86] [2]
Lipid Standards	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard, CUDA, 1,2 di-O-octadecyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine	Internal standards for lipid quantification and quality control [86] [28]
DNA Sequencing Kits	16S rRNA amplification kits (e.g., Illumina 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation)	Taxonomic profiling of gut microbiota [89]
Bioinformatics Tools	MS-DIAL (lipidomics), QIIME2, MOTHUR (microbiome)	Data processing, lipid annotation, and microbial community analysis [86] [89]
Lipid Extraction Reagents	Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), methanol, chloroform, isopropanol	Liquid-liquid extraction of lipids from biological samples [86] [28]

Implications for Therapeutic Development and Precision Medicine

The distinct lipidomic and gut microbiota features of youth-onset T2DM present both challenges and opportunities for therapeutic development. The identification of specific ceramide species as key mediators of insulin resistance in pediatric T2DM suggests potential targets for ceramide-focused therapeutics [87]. Experimental approaches to reduce ceramide synthesis, including serine palmitoyltransferase inhibition or ceramide synthase inhibition, show promise in preclinical models and may offer novel treatment avenues for youth-onset T2DM [87].

The demonstrated modifiability of both lipidome and gut microbiota through interventions provides encouraging prospects for novel treatment strategies. Lifestyle interventions in pediatric populations have shown efficacy in modifying both gut microbiota composition and circulating lipid profiles, with specific changes in ceramide, lysophospholipid, and phospholipid species associated with improved metabolic parameters [91] [88]. Similarly, pharmacological interventions such as exenatide (a GLP-1 receptor agonist) have demonstrated significant effects on specific lipid classes including sphingomyelins, lysophosphatidylcholines, and lysophosphatidylethanolamines in adults with T2DM [90], though pediatric studies are needed.

The integration of lipidomic and microbiome profiling holds promise for personalized medicine approaches in T2DM management. Specific microbial signatures may predict individual responses to dietary interventions, while lipidomic profiles could guide targeted pharmacological approaches based on an individual's specific lipid metabolic disturbances. Future research focusing on the functional relationships between gut microbiota, lipid metabolism, and insulin signaling will be essential for developing these precision approaches, particularly for the aggressive pediatric form of T2DM.

Youth-onset T2DM demonstrates distinct lipidomic signatures characterized by specific alterations in ceramides, phosphocholines, phosphoinositols, and lysophospholipids that differentiate it from adult-onset disease. These lipidomic patterns interact with unique gut microbiota alterations in pediatric populations, particularly regarding Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratios and specific genera including Prevotella, Dorea, and Faecalibacterium. The integrated analysis of lipidome and microbiome provides novel insights into the aggressive pathophysiology of youth-onset T2DM and offers promising avenues for biomarker discovery and targeted interventions. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies to establish causal relationships, interventional trials to assess microbiota-modifying approaches, and further refinement of analytical techniques to comprehensively characterize the complex metabolic landscape of early-onset T2DM.

In the pursuit of precision medicine for diabetes management, lipidomics has emerged as a revolutionary approach for identifying complication-specific biomarkers. Lipids represent a broad class of molecules encompassing thousands of chemically distinct species with diverse biological functions, including cell signaling, energy storage, and structural integrity of plasma membranes [92]. The National Institutes of Health's Lipid Metabolites and Pathways Strategy (LIPID MAPS) classification system organizes lipids into eight key categories: fatty acyls, glycerolipids, glycerophospholipids, sphingolipids, sterol lipids, prenol lipids, saccharolipids, and polyketides [92]. Lipidomics, a specialized subfield of metabolomics, provides comprehensive analysis of lipid molecular species and their dynamic changes in both healthy and diseased states [92] [93].

For researchers investigating diabetic complications, lipid biomarkers offer unprecedented opportunities for early detection, risk stratification, and understanding pathological mechanisms. Diabetic retinopathy (DR), neuropathy, and cardiovascular disease share common pathological features but demonstrate distinct lipidomic signatures that can be leveraged for precision medicine. The transition of lipid research from bench to bedside relies on discovering biomarkers that are clinically reliable, repeatable, and validated across diverse populations [92]. This comparative guide synthesizes current evidence on complication-specific lipid biomarkers, their performance characteristics, and methodological considerations for research applications in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes contexts.

Comparative Lipid Biomarker Profiles Across Diabetic Complications

Table 1: Complication-Specific Lipid Biomarkers in Diabetes

Complication	Specific Lipid Biomarkers	Direction of Change	Performance Metrics	Diabetes Type Context
Retinopathy	Cer(d18:0/22:0), Cer(d18:0/24:0)	Decreased	Independent risk factor; Diagnostic potential [28]	Primarily T2D [28]
	TAG58:2-FA18:1 and 3 other lipid metabolites	Variable	Effective in NDR vs NPDR discrimination [94]	T1D [94]
	Sphingomyelins, Phosphatidylcholines, Lysophosphatidylcholines	Decreased with progression [95]	Staging capability [95]	T2D [95]
	Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP)	Increased	AUC: 0.697 for DR detection [96]	T2D [96]
Cardiovascular Risk	Specific ceramides, Phosphatidylcholines	Increased	Associated with cardiovascular risk [92]	Both T1D and T2D [92] [97]
	Visceral Adiposity Index (VAI), Lipid Accumulation Product (LAP), AIP	Increased	Significant predictors [98]	Both T1D and T2D [98]
Nephropathy	LPE(16:0), TAG54:2-FA18:1	Variable	Sensitivity: 89.1%, Specificity: 88.1% (vs HC) [99]	T2D [99]
	LPE(16:0), PE(16:0/20:2), TAG54:2-FA18:1	Variable	Staging of microalbuminuria vs macroalbuminuria [99]	T2D [99]

Table 2: Composite Lipid Indices for Diabetic Complications

Composite Index	Calculation Formula	Primary Complication Association	Performance Evidence
Atherogenic Index of Plasma (AIP)	log₁₀(TG/HDL-C) [98] [96]	Retinopathy, Cardiovascular [98] [96]	OR for DR: 4.414 in Q4 vs Q1 [96]
Visceral Adiposity Index (VAI)	Men: (WC/39.68 + BMI/1.88) × (TG/1.03) × (1.31/HDL-C); Women: (WC/36.58 + BMI/1.89) × (TG/0.81) × (1.52/HDL-C) [98]	Nephropathy, Cardiovascular [98]	WMD: 0.63 in DKD vs non-DKD [98]
Lipid Accumulation Product (LAP)	Men: [WC(cm)-65] × TG(mmol/L); Women: [WC(cm)-58] × TG(mmol/L) [98]	Nephropathy [98]	WMD: 12.67 in DKD vs non-DKD [98]

Methodological Approaches in Diabetic Lipidomics

Analytical Platforms and Workflows

Lipidomics methodologies have advanced significantly with targeted, untargeted, and pseudotargeted techniques that enhance structural lipid profiling, resolution, and quantification [92]. Untargeted lipidomics provides a comprehensive picture of a sample's lipid profile without prior knowledge of lipid species of interest, making it ideal for discovery-phase research [92]. In contrast, targeted approaches focus on precise quantification of predefined lipid classes with higher sensitivity and dynamic range, better suited for validation studies [92].

The standard workflow incorporates ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS), which has become the cornerstone technology in modern lipidomics [94] [28]. This platform enables separation of complex lipid mixtures and sensitive detection of individual molecular species. For example, in retinopathy research, broad-targeted lipidomics using UHPLC-MS/MS has successfully identified specific triglyceride and ceramide species that distinguish patients without retinopathy from those with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) [94]. Similarly, in nephropathy studies, LC-MS-based lipidomics has revealed specific lysophosphatidylethanolamine and triacylglycerol combinations that effectively discriminate nephropathy states [99].

Quality Control and Standardization

A critical challenge in lipidomic biomarker research involves standardization and reproducibility across platforms. Recent studies indicate that prominent software platforms like MS DIAL and Lipostar agree on only about 14% of lipid identifications when using default settings, even with identical LC-MS data [92]. This variability underscores the need for standardized protocols, internal standards, and quality control measures including pooled quality control samples analyzed at regular intervals throughout analytical batches [94] [99].

Pathway Analysis and Molecular Mechanisms

Figure 1: Ceramide and Sphingolipid Pathways in Diabetic Complications

The molecular mechanisms linking lipid alterations to diabetic complications center on ceramide and sphingolipid metabolism. Ceramides, crucial intermediates in sphingolipid metabolism, are recognized as major contributors to insulin resistance [28]. In diabetic retinopathy, specific very long-chain ceramides (Cer(d18:0/22:0) and Cer(d18:0/24:0)) are significantly decreased and serve as independent risk factors [28]. This contrasts with the typical increase in ceramides observed in insulin resistance states, suggesting complication-specific alterations in sphingolipid metabolism.

Sphingomyelins, produced by transferring a phosphocholine moiety from phosphatidylcholine to ceramide, demonstrate reduced levels with retinopathy progression and are independently associated with cardiovascular disease [28] [95]. The interconnected nature of these pathways explains the frequent co-occurrence of microvascular and macrovascular complications in diabetes and provides targets for therapeutic intervention.

Experimental Protocols for Lipid Biomarker Research

Serum Sample Collection and Processing

Standardized protocols for sample collection and processing are critical for reproducible lipidomics. The following workflow represents consolidated best practices from multiple studies featured in this review:

Figure 2: Standard Lipidomics Workflow for Diabetes Research

For lipid extraction, the modified methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE) method is widely employed. Briefly, 40-100μL of serum is mixed with ice-cold methanol and cold MTBE, followed by vortexing and shaking at 4°C [94] [99]. After adding LC/MS grade water, samples are centrifuged, and the upper organic layer is transferred and dried under nitrogen gas [94]. The dried lipids are reconstituted in appropriate solvent mixtures (e.g., isopropyl alcohol/acetonitrile/water) before LC-MS analysis [99].

Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Analysis

Lipid separation and detection typically utilize UHPLC systems equipped with C18 reverse-phase columns (e.g., Kinetex C18, 2.6μm, 2.1×100mm) maintained at 45°C [94]. Mobile phase A consists of acetonitrile:water (60:40) with 10mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid, while mobile phase B is isopropanol:acetonitrile (90:10) with 10mM ammonium formate and 0.1% formic acid [94] [28]. The flow rate is typically 0.4mL/min with a gradient elution program.

Mass spectrometry detection employs triple quadrupole or Q-TOF instruments operating in both positive and negative ion modes with electrospray ionization [94] [28]. For targeted analysis, multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions are used for specific lipid species quantification [28]. Quality control samples prepared from pooled aliquots of all samples should be analyzed every 10-15 injections to monitor instrument stability [99].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Research Materials for Diabetic Lipidomics

Category	Specific Items	Application Purpose	Examples from Literature
Chromatography	C18 reverse-phase columns (e.g., Kinetex C18, 2.6μm)	Lipid separation	[94]
	Acetonitrile, methanol, isopropanol (HPLC grade)	Mobile phase preparation	[94] [99]
	Ammonium formate, formic acid	Mobile phase additives	[94] [28]
Mass Spectrometry	Triple quadrupole MS (e.g., Triple Quad 6500+)	Lipid detection and quantification	[94]
	SPLASH LIPIDOMIX Mass Spec Standard	Internal standardization	[28]
Sample Preparation	Methyl-tert-butyl ether (MTBE)	Lipid extraction	[99]
	Prechilled isopropanol	Protein precipitation and lipid extraction	[28]
Specialized Reagents	Internal standard mixtures (13C, 2H-labeled lipids)	Quantification normalization	[94]
	Quality control materials (pooled human serum)	Process monitoring	[99]

Research Gaps and Future Directions

Despite significant advances, several challenges remain in translating lipid biomarkers to clinical practice. Reproducibility issues persist due to biological variability, lipid structural diversity, inconsistent sample processing, and lack of standardized procedures [92]. The transition from research findings to approved diagnostic tools remains limited, with very few FDA-approved lipid biomarkers currently available for diabetic complications [92].

Future research directions should focus on multi-center validation studies to verify lipidomic signatures across diverse populations and diabetes types. Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches show particular promise, with models like MS2Lipid demonstrating up to 97.4% accuracy in predicting lipid subclasses [92]. Integrated multi-omics approaches that combine lipidomic data with genomic, proteomic, and clinical variables will likely yield more robust biomarker panels with enhanced predictive power [92].

For researchers, prioritizing standardized protocols, larger validation cohorts, and complication-specific rather than general diabetes biomarkers will accelerate clinical translation. The distinctive ceramide reductions in retinopathy compared to other complications highlight the potential for highly specific diagnostic tools emerging from rigorous lipidomic investigation.

Conclusion

Comparative lipidomics reveals that T1D and T2D are characterized by fundamentally distinct lipid metabolic disruptions, not merely variations of a common pattern. The consistent finding of opposing lysophosphatidylcholine and ceramide trends, along with population-specific signatures, underscores the necessity for precision medicine approaches in diabetes management. Future research must prioritize large-scale validation studies across diverse populations, standardize analytical protocols for clinical translation, and explore targeted dietary interventions that modulate specific risk-associated lipid species. The identified lipid fingerprints hold immense promise for developing novel diagnostic panels, personalized risk stratification tools, and mechanistically-informed therapies that address the unique lipid pathophysiology underlying different diabetes types and their complications.

References

• 1. Lipidome characterisation and sex-specific differences in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38553758/]
• 2. Lipidome characterisation and sex-specific differences in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10981308/]
• 3. Sex-specific lipidome changes associated with diabetes [https://communities.springernature.com/posts/sex-specific-lipidome-changes-associated-with-diabetes]
• 4. Role of Ceramides in the Pathogenesis of Diabetes Mellitus ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8663915/]
• 5. A cross-sectional study [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40737292/]
• 6. Association of serum lysophosphatidylcholine acyltransferase ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0329301]
• 7. Lysophosphatidylcholine as a biomarker for severe aortic ... [https://journals.viamedica.pl/polish_heart_journal/article/view/106620/85846]
• 8. Inhibiting Phosphatidylcholine Remodeling in Adipose ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10588299/]
• 9. Targeting phospholipid remodeling pathway improves ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10575708/]
• 10. Lipidomic Abnormalities During the Pathogenesis of Type ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7429527/]
• 11. Dynamics of Plasma Lipidome in Progression to Islet ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-28907-8]
• 12. Blood Metabolic Biomarkers of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/15/6/395]
• 13. Urinary lipid metabolites and progression of kidney ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2025.1650498/full]
• 14. Lipidomics reveals potential biomarkers and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11930151/]
• 15. 1-Deoxysphingolipids, Early Predictors of Type 2 Diabetes, ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8739520/]
• 16. Lipidome characterisation and sex-specific differences in type ... [https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-024-02202-5]
• 17. Characterizing plasma lipid species in metabolic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15778-z]
• 18. Lipid metabolism in type 1 diabetes mellitus: Pathogenetic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.999108/full]
• 19. Comparative lipidomic profiling in adolescents with obesity ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39828111/]
• 20. Mitochondrial ABHD11 inhibition drives sterol metabolism ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12583646/]
• 21. Lipidomic analysis reveals metabolism alteration associated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11967040/]
• 22. Discovering early diagnostic markers of cardiovascular ... [https://www.breakthrought1d.org/grants/united-states/wisconsin/discovering-early-diagnostic-markers-of-cardiovascular-disease-risk-with-lipidomics-in-a-30-year-longitudinal-prospective-type-1-diabetes-cohort/]
• 23. Lipidomic signatures linked to gut microbiota alterations in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04343-3]
• 24. Lipidomic analysis reveals metabolism alteration ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40176064/]
• 25. Characterizing plasma lipid species in metabolic dysfunction ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40849529/]
• 26. Characterizing lipoprotein profiles in coronary ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44325-025-00091-5]
• 27. Farther than fat: how lipids change research [https://www.drugtargetreview.com/article/43067/farther-than-fat-how-lipidomics-change-research/]
• 28. Lipidomic studies revealing serological markers associated ... [https://translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12967-024-05274-9]
• 29. High Throughput LC-MS Platform for Large Scale ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9639203/]
• 30. LC-MS-Based Lipidomic Analysis of Serum Samples from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8858047/]
• 31. Single-cell lipidomics: performance evaluation across four ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12462284/]
• 32. Foodomics in Diabetes Management: A New Approach - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12477330/]
• 33. Integrative analyses of TEDDY Omics data reveal lipid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7818777/]
• 34. An omics-based machine learning approach to predict ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10954972/]
• 35. Research on Lipidomic Profiling and Biomarker ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/12/2827]
• 36. Predicting type 2 diabetes via machine learning integration ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-64846-3]
• 37. Setting Ranges in Potential Biomarkers for Type 2 ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/14/15/1623]
• 38. A Comparison of Feature Selection and Forecasting ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/4/1742]
• 39. Integrating machine learning and nontargeted plasma ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2024.1335269/full]
• 40. Development of a serum protein biomarker panel for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12518602/]
• 41. Lipidomic analysis reveals metabolism alteration associated ... [https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-025-02701-z]
• 42. Frontiers | Identification and validation of a novel autoantibody... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1494446/full]
• 43. Machine learning identifies inflammation-related diagnostic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24756-4]
• 44. Circulating lipidome underpins gender differences in the ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022227525000768]
• 45. Multiplex Sepsis Biomarker Market Panels [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/multiplex-sepsis-biomarker-panels-market]
• 46. Metabolomics and lipidomics strategies in modern drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10543515/]
• 47. Association of the lipidome with type 1 diabetes and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12173266/]
• 48. Deep serum lipidomics identifies evaluative and predictive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916524007093]
• 49. Association of non-traditional lipid indices with diabetes ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12331762/]
• 50. Lipidomic profiling unveils sex differences in diabetes risk [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41133433/]
• 51. Lipidomics in biomedical research: chance and challenges [https://www.ddw-online.com/lipidomics-in-biomedical-research-chance-and-challenges-12719-202108/]
• 52. Challenges with Standardization in Lipidomics [https://www.azolifesciences.com/article/Challenges-with-Standardization-in-Lipidomics.aspx]
• 53. Inter-Laboratory Comparison of Metabolite Measurements ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6918145/]
• 54. Challenges in Lipidomics Biomarker Identification [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11356033/]
• 55. Lipid profile alterations and biomarker identification in type 1 ... [https://bmcendocrdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12902-024-01679-1]
• 56. Perturbations in the lipid profile of individuals with newly ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2919299/]
• 57. Data analysis of MS-based clinical lipidomics studies with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8620525/]
• 58. Comparative Analysis of White and African American ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40615-025-02642-z]
• 59. Diet-Related Lipidomic Signatures and Changed Type 2 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10465987/]
• 60. Circulating metabolomic and lipidomic changes in subjects ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168822723000530]
• 61. The Lipidomic Profile Is Associated with the Dietary Pattern ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/12/1805]
• 62. Lipidomics reveals a remarkable diversity of lipids in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2952570/]
• 63. Moderate-intensity Combined Training Induces Lipidomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11318996/]
• 64. Lipidomic profiling reveals distinct differences in plasma ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5502363/]
• 65. Lipidomics based on UHPLC/Q-TOF-MS to characterize ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024023570]
• 66. A longitudinal plasma lipidomics dataset from children who ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2018250]
• 67. Serum Lipidomic Analysis of T2DM Patients: A Potential ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11847430/]
• 68. Lipidomics from sample preparation to data analysis [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7118050/]
• 69. Analytical quality control in targeted lipidomics [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003267025006191]
• 70. Validation of a multiplexed and targeted lipidomics assay ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9168725/]
• 71. Why You Must Correct Batch Effects in Transcriptomics Data? [https://www.metwarebio.com/transcriptomics-batch-effect-correction/]
• 72. Streamlining Lipidomics: Novel Statistical Workflows and ... [https://www.chromatographyonline.com/view/streamlining-lipidomics-novel-statistical-workflows-and-visualization-in-r-and-python]
• 73. Enhancing Lipidomics With High-Resolution Ion Mobility ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12445972/]
• 74. Comparative Analysis of Untargeted and Targeted ... [https://www.creative-proteomics.com/resource/untargeted-targeted-lipidomics.htm]
• 75. Comparative Analysis of White and African American Groups ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41006893/]
• 76. Lipid metabolism in type 1 diabetes mellitus - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9583919/]
• 77. Comparative analysis of White and African American ... [https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.11.13.24317202v1]
• 78. Comparative analysis of White and African American ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11601720/]
• 79. The impact of Race and Ethnicity on Lipoprotein (a) Levels ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8087179/]
• 80. 性别差异视角下2型糖尿病(T2D)患者代谢组学特征与冠心病(CHD) ... [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-8/20250824002234596.htm]
• 81. 循环脂质组是2型糖尿病发病机制中性别差异的基础。 [https://suppr.wilddata.cn/browses/detail/pubmed/40294748]
• 82. 醚脂与鞘脂驱动人类衰老过程中的性别特异性动态变化 [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-7/20250720000446659.htm]
• 83. 阿尔茨海默病女性患者体内不饱和脂质减少的脂质组学研究-家医大健康 [https://www.familydoctor.cn/news/aercihaimobing-nvxing-huanzhe-tinei-bubaohe-zhizhi-jianshao-zhizhi-xue-yanjiu-183198.html]
• 84. 主动脉瓣疾病中性别特异性脂质组学特征揭示纤维钙化进展 ... [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-6/20250604074622555.htm]
• 85. 阿尔茨海默病女性患者血浆不饱和脂质降低的 ... [https://www.ebiotrade.com/newsf/2025-8/20250822012455831.htm]
• 86. Lipidomic signatures linked to gut microbiota alterations in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12134222/]
• 87. Omics era in type 2 diabetes: From childhood to adulthood [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8696648/]
• 88. Lipidome Profiling in Childhood Obesity Compared to Adults [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/15/3341]
• 89. Characterization of gut microbiota associated with metabolic ... [https://bmcpediatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12887-023-03983-6]
• 90. The Changes of Lipidomic Profiles Reveal Therapeutic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2022.677202/full]
• 91. Integrative metagenomic and lipidomic analyses reveal ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2024.1423724/full]
• 92. Exploring lipidomics in biomarker discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0009898125005777?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 93. Exploring lipidomics in biomarker discovery [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41197707/]
• 94. Clinical serum lipidomic profiling revealed potential lipid ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66157-z]
• 95. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomic and lipidomic ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40850511/]
• 96. Correlation between the atherogenic index of plasma and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1565414/full]
• 97. Cardiovascular risk factors and modern therapeutic strategies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12450714/]
• 98. Novel Lipid Biomarkers and Microvascular Complications ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12357997/]
• 99. Lipidomics Reveals Serum Specific Lipid Alterations in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/endocrinology/articles/10.3389/fendo.2021.781417/full]