4.5 Article

The genetic polymorphisms of intercellular cell adhesion molecules and breast cancer susceptibility: a meta-analysis

Journal

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
Volume 40, Issue 2, Pages 1855-1860

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-012-2241-4

Keywords

Gene; Polymorphism; Breast cancer; Intercellular cell adhesion molecule; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intercellular cell adhesion molecules (ICAMs) genetic polymorphisms have been considered to be implicated in the development of breast cancer. However, the previous reports are conflicting. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to assess the association between three polymorphisms, including ICAM1 K469E, ICAM5 V301I, ICAM5 rs281439, and breast cancer risk. The meta-analyses are based on a literature search of PubMed, CNKI and VIP database up until August 2011. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated using review manager 5.0.25 package. In total, five populations (2,020 cases and 2,012 controls) on ICAM1 K469E polymorphism, four populations (1,797 cases and 2,244 controls) on ICAM5 V301I polymorphism and five populations (2,744 cases and 3,006 controls) on ICAM5 rs281439 variant were included. Overall, the meta-analysis showed no significant association between ICAM1 K469E polymorphism and breast cancer risk. However, a significant association was observed for ICAM5 V301I polymorphism (VV vs. II: OR = 1.48, 95 % CI 1.04-2.13, P = 0.03; VV/VI vs. II: OR = 1.25, 95 % CI 1.05-1.48, P = 0.01). In addition, there was a significant association between ICAM5 rs281439 variant and breast cancer risk (GG vs. CC: OR = 1.31, 95 % CI 1.03-1.65, P = 0.03). Our meta-analysis suggests that the ICAM5 V301I and rs281439 variants but not ICAM1 K469E polymorphism may contribute to the susceptibility of breast cancer. Given the limited sample sizes, further investigation is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available