4.6 Review

CTLA-4 gene polymorphisms and susceptibility to type 1 diabetes mellitus:: A HuGE review and meta-analysis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 162, Issue 1, Pages 3-16

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwi165

Keywords

CTLA-4; diabetes mellitus, type 1; epidemiology; genes; meta-analysis; polymorphism, genetic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authors performed a meta-analysis of 33 studies examining the association of type 1 diabetes mellitus with polymorphisms in the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) gene, including the A49G (29 comparisons), C(-318)T(three comparisons), and (AT)n microsatellite (six comparisons) polymorphisms. The studies included 5,637 cases of type 1 diabetes and 6,759 controls (4,775 and 5,829, respectively, for analysis of the A49G polymorphism). The random-effects odds ratio for the *G (Ala) allele versus the *A (Thr) allele was 1.45 (95% confidence interval (Cl): 1.28, 1.65), with significant between-study heterogeneity (p < 0.001). The effect size tended to be higher in type 1 diabetes cases with age of onset <20 years (odds ratio (OR) = 1.61), and there was a significant association between the presence of glutamic acid clecarboxylase-65 autoantibodies and the *G allele among type 1 diabetes cases (OR = 1.49). Larger studies showed more conservative results (p = 0.011). After exclusion of studies with fewer than 150 subjects and studies with significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in the controls, the summary odds ratio was 1.40 (95% Cl: 1.28, 1.54). Available data showed no strong association for the 106-base-pair allele of the microsatellite polymorphism (OR = 0.99, 95% Cl: 0.64, 1.55) or the *T allele of the C(-318)T polymorphism (OR = 0.92, 95% Cl: 0.45, 1.89). This meta-analysis demonstrates that the CTLA-4*G genotype is associated with type 1 diabetes.

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