4.6 Article

PLA2G7 gene polymorphisms and coronary heart disease risk: A meta-analysis

期刊

THROMBOSIS RESEARCH
卷 126, 期 6, 页码 498-503

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2010.09.009

关键词

PLA2G7; Polymorphism; Coronary heart disease; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2006CB503805]
  2. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China [2006AA02Z170]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Variants of PLA2G7 gene have been reported to be associated with coronary heart disease (CHD) since ten years ago, but the available data on this relationship are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effect of PLA2G7 gene on CHD. Materials and Methods: Association studies were identified from the databases of PubMed, EMbase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang by two investigators and pooled effects (odds ratio (OR), together with 95% confidence interval (CI)) were calculated. Results: 14 association studies focusing on three polymorphisms (A379V, V279F and R92H) in PLA2G7 gene and risk of CHD were included in meta-analysis, covering a total of 8,280 cases and 5,656 controls. Concerning R92H, a significantly increased CHD risk was observed in recessive model, with an OR of 1.31(1.02, 1.68). Nevertheless, combined analyses of studies of the A379V and V279F variants showed no significant overall association with CHD, yielding ORs of 0.99(0.85, 1.15) and 1.09(0.88, 1.35) in allelic analysis, with strong evidence of heterogeneity. Similar results were also obtained in dominant and recessive models. Conclusions: The results indicate 92H allele had probably increased the risk of CHD, while the hypothesized effects of A379V and V279F polymorphisms on CHD cannot be confirmed in present data. However, given the limited number of studies and the potential biases, the influence of these polymorphisms on CHD risk needs further investigation. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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