4.4 Review

The association between Matrix Metallo-proteinases-9 (MMP-9) gene family polymorphisms and risk of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD): a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BMC CARDIOVASCULAR DISORDERS
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-020-01510-4

关键词

Coronary artery disease; Matrix metalloproteinases; Genetic polymorphism; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)-9 (C1562T), MMP-9 (R279Q), MMP-9 (P574R) and MMP-9 (R668Q) polymorphisms and risk of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). Methods After a systematic literature search, pooled odds ratio (OR) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to evaluate the strength of the association. Results We identified 40 studies with 11,792 cases and 8280 controls for C1562T, 7 case-control studies with 5525 cases and 2497 controls for R279Q, 2 studies with 1272 cases and 785 controls for P574R, and 2 studies with 1272 cases and 785 controls for R668Q. MMP-9 (C1562T) polymorphism was associated with increased risk of CAD under dominant model (OR = 1.41, P < 0.001), recessive model (OR = 1.59, P < 0.001), allelic model (OR = 1.38, P < 0.001), TT vs. CC model (OR = 1.70, P < 0.001), and CT vs. CC model (OR = 1.35, P < 0.001). Moreover, the subgroup analysis based on the continent of the study populations in this SNP indicated strong significant association in Asians but not in Europeans. Subgroup analysis was not performed in Africa, America and Oceania, due to lack of sufficient data. Conclusions Our meta-analysis revealed that MMP-9 (C1562T) SNP conferred a susceptibility risk for CAD in the overall analysis and Asian population. The overall analysis and subgroup analysis of the other three SNPs reject the association between MMP-9 polymorphisms and the risk of CAD. Although the results should interpret with caution because of small sample size of included studies in these three SNPs.

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

4.4
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