4.5 Article

Correlation investigation between a single nucleotide polymorphism in ADAMTS14 (rs4747096) and osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04056-1

关键词

Osteoarthritis; Single nucleotide polymorphism; ADAMTS14; rs4747096; Susceptibility; Meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study performed a meta-analysis to investigate the association between the ADAMTS14 rs4747096 polymorphism and osteoarthritis (OA) risk. The results showed a significant correlation between the rs4747096 polymorphism and OA risk in the allele, additive, and dominant genetic models.
BackgroundCurrent evidence of the association between a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) in ADAMTS14 (rs4747096) and osteoarthritis (OA) is controversial. This study aimed to determine whether the ADAMTS14 SNP is closely related to OA risk.MethodsAn electronic search of for the association between the rs4747096 polymorphisms and OA was performed using four online databases (updated on September 10, 2022). The association between susceptibility to OA and rs4747096 polymorphism was evaluated in four genetic models: the allele (mutation [A] vs. wild type [G]), additive (AA vs. GG and AG vs. GG), recessive (AA vs. AG + GG), and dominant (AA + AG vs. GG). This meta-analysis was performed in the R software, and effects were assessed using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsFour studies (707 cases in the case group and 859 cases in the control group) were included. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, except in the recessive genetic model, there was a significant correlation between OA risk and the rs4747096 polymorphism using the allele (OR [95% CI] = 1.48 [1.26-1.73], P < 0.001), additive (AG vs. GG, OR [95% CI] = 2.56 [1.79-3.65], P < 0.001; AA vs. GG, OR [95% CI] = 2.81 [1.98-3.98], P < 0.001), and dominant (OR [95% CI)] = 1.72 [1.34-2.2], P < 0.001) genetic models.ConclusionsThe ADAMTS14 rs4747096 polymorphism is associated with susceptibility to OA.

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