4.6 Article

The TERT rs2736100 Polymorphism and Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis Based on 25 Case-Control Studies

期刊

BMC CANCER
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-12-7

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30901534]
  2. Jiangsu Province's Natural Science Foundation [BK2009444]
  3. Grant for the 135 Key Medical Project of Jiangsu Province [XK201117]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The association between the TERT rs2736100 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) and cancer risk has been studied by many researchers, but the results remain inconclusive. To further explore this association, we performed a meta-analysis. Methods: A computerized search of PubMed and Embase database for publications on the TERT rs2736100 polymorphism and cancer risk was performed and the genotype data were analyzed in a meta-analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to assess the association. Sensitivity analysis, test of heterogeneity, cumulative meta-analysis and assessment of bias were performed in our meta-analysis. Results: A significant association between the TERT rs2736100 polymorphism and cancer susceptibility was revealed by the results of the meta-analysis of the 25 case-control studies (GG versus TT: OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.58, 1.88; GT versus TT: OR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.29, 1.47; dominant model-TG + GG versus TT: OR = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.37, 1.58; recessive model-GG versus TT + TG: OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.31, 1.43; additive model-2GG + TG versus 2TT + TG: OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.36). Moreover, increased cancer risk in all genetic models was found after stratification of the SNP data by cancer type, ethnicity and source of controls. Conclusions: In all genetic models, the association between the TERT rs2736100 polymorphism and cancer risk was significant. This meta-analysis suggests that the TERT rs2736100 polymorphism may be a risk factor for cancer. Further functional studies between this polymorphism and cancer risk 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

4.6
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