4.1 Article

The-116C/G Polymorphism in XBP1 Gene is Associated with Psychiatric Illness in Asian Population: A Meta-Analysis

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.32271

Keywords

XBP1; polymorphism; psychiatric illness; meta-analysis

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81170022]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) is a pivotal transcription factor and plays an important role in the pathogenesis of psychiatric illness. The association between XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism and risk of psychiatric illness has been investigated in different populations. However, the results of these studies remain conflicting. Therefore, we performed a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the association between XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism and the overall psychiatric illness risk. Pubmed, Embase, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched for case-control studies on the association between XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism and psychiatric illness risk published up to July 31, 2014. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to access the strength of this association. Fourteen case-control studies including 3,512 cases and 4,889 controls were included. Overall, no significant association was found between XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism and the risk of psychiatric illness (C/G vs. C/C: OR=1.04, 95%CI=0.92-1.17, P=0.54). However, there was a significant association between this polymorphism and the psychiatric illness in Asian population (C/G vs. C/C: OR=1.27, 95%CI=1.00-1.61, P=0.05; G/G+C/G vs. C/C: OR=1.32, 95%CI=1.05-1.65, P=0.02). Furthermore, we found a significant association between XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism and the risk of bipolar disorder in Asian population (C/G vs. C/C: OR=1.81, 95%CI=1.15-2.86, P=0.01). The XBP1 -116C/G polymorphism is associated with an increased risk of bipolar disorder in Asian population. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available