4.2 Article

Meta-analysis of the association of IL2RA polymorphisms rs2104286 and rs12722489 with multiple sclerosis risk

Journal

IMMUNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 47, Issue 5, Pages 431-442

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/08820139.2018.1425699

Keywords

IL2RA; meta-analysis; multiple sclerosis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The interleukin-2 receptor alpha (IL2RA) gene polymorphisms may be implicated in the genetic susceptibility to multiple sclerosis (MS). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the relationship of the IL2RA polymorphisms rs2104286 and rs12722489 with MS risk in different populations. Methods: Eligible association studies were identified through search in Pubmed, Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus (end of search: August 2017). Summary odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects models. All statistical analyses were two-sided. Results: Eleven studies including 8608 cases and 9061 controls evaluated rs2104286. The results demonstrated that the A allele of rs2104286 was associated with increased risk of MS in Caucasians (OR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.13-1.25, p < 0.001) and Asians (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.01-1.55, p = 0.041), respectively. Concerning rs12722489, six studies with 4259 cases and 5420 controls were eligible. We found that the C allele of rs12722489 was associated with elevated MS risk in Caucasians (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.12-1.29, p < 0.001) but not in Asians (OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.75-1.63, p = 0.629). Statistical evidence from the Egger and Begg tests showed absence of publication bias. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were stable. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that the rs2104286 A allele is associated with increased MS risk in both Caucasians and Asians, whereas the rs12722489 C allele is associated with elevated MS risk in Caucasians but not in Asians.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available