4.7 Article

Endothelial NO synthase gene polymorphisms and hypertension - A meta-analysis

Journal

HYPERTENSION
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 700-710

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.HYP.0000238124.91161.02

Keywords

nitric oxide; polymorphism; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Studies investigated the association between endothelial NO synthase gene polymorphisms and hypertension-reported contradicted or nonconclusive results. A meta-analysis of 35 genetic association studies that examined the relation between hypertension and the G894T, 4a/b, T786C, and G23T polymorphisms of the endothelial nitric oxide synthase gene was carried out. Subgroup analysis by ethnicity and potential sources of heterogeneity and bias were explored. The meta-analysis included genotype data on 7779/10 498, 2216/3222, 2491/3913, and 833/587 cases/controls for G894T, 4b/a, T786C, and G23T, respectively. For the 4b/a polymorphism, overall, the heterogeneity between studies was not significant (P=0.82), and the allele b was associated with a 15% decreased risk of hypertension relative to allele a (odds ratio: 0.85; 95% Cl: 0.74 to 0.98). Overall and in whites, the recessive model for allele b produced significant results (odds ratios: 0.78; 95% Cl: 0.68 to 0.90 and OR: 0.76 95% Cl: 0.62 to 0.92, respectively), whereas the dominant model produced nonsignificant results. In studies involved East Asians and blacks, an association was not demonstrated. Regarding the G894T, T768C, and G23T polymorphisms, in no case (ie, overall, in whites, or in East Asians) was a statistically significant association and heterogeneity found. There was no substantial source of bias in the selected studies. In conclusion, there is evidence of association only between 4b/a polymorphism and hypertension; however, studies exploring combinations of the polymorphisms may help us better understand the genetics of hypertension.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available