4.7 Review

Mitochondrial DNA Copy Number and Risk of Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Syndrome

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/clinem/dgad403

关键词

mitochondrial DNA; diabetes mellitus; metabolic syndrome; systematic review; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found an association between mitochondrial DNA copy number and diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome. Lower copy numbers were associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome.
Context Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) plays a key role in diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome (MetS). An increasing number of studies have reported the association between mtDNA copy number (mtDNA-CN) and the risk of diabetes mellitus and MetS; however, the associations remain conflicted and a systematic review and meta-analysis on the association between mtDNA-CN and diabetes mellitus and MetS is lacking. Objective We aimed to investigate the association of mtDNA-CN and diabetes mellitus and MetS using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched up to December 15, 2022. Random-effect models were used to summarize the relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs. Results A total of 19 articles were included in the systematic review and 6 articles (12 studies) in the meta-analysis involving 21 714 patients with diabetes (318 870 participants) and 5031 MetS (15 040 participants). Compared to the highest mtDNA-CN, the summary RR (95% CIs) for the lowest mtDNA-CN were 1.06 (95% CI, 1.01-1.12; I-2 = 79.4%; n = 8) for diabetes (prospective study: 1.11 (1.02-1.21); I-2 = 22.6%; n = 4; case-control: 1.27 (0.66-2.43); I-2 = 81.8%; n = 2; cross-sectional: 1.01 (0.99-1.03); I-2 = 74.7%; n = 2), and 1.03 (0.99-1.07; I-2 = 70.6%; n = 4) for MetS (prospective: 2.87 (1.51-5.48); I-2 = 0; n = 2; cross-sectional: 1.02 (1.01-1.04); I-2 = 0; n = 2). Conclusion Decreased mtDNA-CN was associated with increased risk of diabetes mellitus and MetS when limited to prospective studies. More longitudinal studies are warranted.

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

4.7
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