4.1 Article

Association of DENND1A Gene Polymorphisms with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

出版社

GALENOS PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.4274/jcrpe.2259

关键词

Polycystic ovary syndrome; DENND1A; rs2479106; rs10818854; meta-analysis

资金

  1. social development of Hainan province special fund of science and technology [SF201302]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The rs2479106 and rs10818854 polymorphisms in the DENND1A gene have been reported to be extensively associated with risk of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, the results from these studies remained inconclusive and conflicting. To detect a true association of rs2479106 and rs10818854 polymorphisms with PCOS risk, a single study may be underpowered, particularly for those studies with inadequate sample size. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of all available studies to explore this association. Methods: All studies published up to March 2015 on the association were identified by searching electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Studies containing available genotype frequencies of those 2 polymorphisms were chosen, and the odds ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Results: A total of 8 studies about s2479106 polymorphism (8185 cases and 28675 controls) and 5 studies about rs10818854 polymorphism (6638 cases and 27443 controls) met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Overall, significant increase of PCOS risk was found between DENND1A-rs10818854 and PCOS susceptibility. In addition, we also found an increased risk of PCOS in rs2479106 allele model, heterozygote variant genetic model, and dominant genetic model. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggested that rs2479106 and rs10818854 polymorphisms in the DENND1A gene were associated with increased risk of PCOS. To validate the association between these polymorphisms and PCOS susceptibility, further large and well-designed studies are needed.

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

4.1
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