4.6 Review

Synopsis and Synthesis of Candidate-Gene Association Studies in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: The CUMAGAS-CLL Information System

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 170, Issue 6, Pages 671-678

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwp201

Keywords

database; epidemiology; genes; genome; human; information systems; leukemia; lymphocytic; chronic; B-cell; meta-analysis; polymorphism; genetic

Funding

  1. Bodosakis Foundation
  2. University of Thessaly Resear
  3. ALPHA Bank

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comprehensive and systematic assessment of the current status of candidate-gene association studies for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) was conducted. Data from 989 candidate-gene association studies (1992-2009) involving 905 distinct genetic variants were analyzed and cataloged in CUMAGAS-CLL, a Web-based information system which allows the retrieval and synthesis of data from candidate-gene association studies on CLL (http://www.w3.org/1999/). Nine genetic variants (BAX (rs4645878), GSTM1 (null/present), GSTT1 (null/present), IL10 (rs1800896), LTA (rs909253), MTHFR (rs1801131), MTHFR (rs1801133), P2RX7 (rs3751143), and TNF (rs1800629)) were investigated in 4 or more studies, and their results were meta-analyzed. In individual studies, 147 variants showed a significant association with CLL risk under any genetic model. For 53 variants, the association was significant at P < 0.01 with an increased risk greater than 40%. Only 0.3% of studies had statistical power greater than 80%. In meta-analyses, none of the variants showed significant results, and heterogeneity ranged from none to high. Large and rigorous genetic studies (candidate-gene association studies and genome-wide association studies) designed to investigate epistatic and gene-environment interactions may produce more conclusive evidence about the genetic etiology of CLL. CUMAGAS-CLL would be a useful tool for current genomic epidemiology research in the field of CLL.

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