4.6 Review

Negative association between androgen receptor gene CAG repeat polymorphism and polycystic ovary syndrome? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

MOLECULAR HUMAN REPRODUCTION
Volume 18, Issue 10, Pages 498-509

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/molehr/gas024

Keywords

androgen receptor; CAG repeat; genetic polymorphism; meta-analysis; polycystic ovary syndrome

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-HD29364, K24-HD01346, M01-RR00425]
  2. Helping Hand of Los Angeles, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A number of studies focusing on the association between the exon 1 CAG repeat polymorphism of the androgen receptor (AR) gene and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have revealed conflicting results. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the strength of the association and to explore potential sources of heterogeneity that may have influenced the results. Studies matched to search terms from PubMed, EMBASE and HuGE Navigator published through to 31 January 2012 were retrieved. Data extraction from the included studies was carried out by two authors independently. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) of biallelic mean and odds ratios (ORs) of alleles and genotypes were pooled for meta-analysis. Sixteen articles reporting on 17 studies were included. In continuous data analysis, the summary WMD was 0.06 (95 confidence interval 0.29 to 0.16). In dichotomous data analysis, we divided the alleles into short and long alleles and calculated the summary ORs. No statistically significant results were identified by different comparison models or different cut-off point definitions. No publication bias was observed in continuous and dichotomous data analysis. In summary, the current systematic review and meta-analysis found that the AR CAG microsatellite repeat polymorphism is unlikely to be a major determining factor in the development of PCOS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available