4.5 Article

TNF-308 gene polymorphism is associated with COPD risk among Asians: meta-analysis of data for 6,118 subjects

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 219-227

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-010-0098-y

关键词

TNF; Polymorphism; COPD; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Nanjing Sanitary Bureau of Jiangsu Province
  2. Jiangsu province Natural Science Foundation of China [BK2008326]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex polygenic disease in which gene-environment interactions play a critical role in disease onset and progression. The gene encoding tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is one of several candidate loci for the pathogenesis of COPD and is highly polymorphic. A number of studies have investigated the association between the TNF-308 polymorphisms and COPD risk in different populations, and resulted in inconsistent results. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published studies were performed to gain a clearer understanding of this association. The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI databases were searched for case-control studies published from 1966 to April 2009. Data were extracted and pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Twenty-four eligible studies, comprising 2,380 COPD cases and 3,738 controls, were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled result showed that the TNF-308 polymorphisms were significantly associated with an increased risk of COPD (OR = 1.335, 95% CI: 1.172-1.522, for allele A carriers versus G/G; OR = 1.330, 95% CI = 1.174-1.505, for allele A versus allele G). Subgroup analysis supported the results in the Asian populations, but not in the Caucasian populations. When the analysis was limited to only those studies in which the COPD cases and controls were smokers/ex-smokers, the pooled results supported the conclusion. This meta-analysis suggested that the TNF-308 A allele is a more significant risk factor for developing COPD among Asian populations, but not among Caucasians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据