4.6 Article

Tumor necrosis factor alpha -308G>A, -863C>A, -857C>T gene polymorphisms and tuberculosis susceptibility: A meta-analysis

期刊

GENE
卷 509, 期 2, 页码 206-214

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2012.08.027

关键词

Single-nucleotide polymorphism; Genotype; Ethnic group; Risk factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/aims: A large number of studies have shown that polymorphisms in the tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha, TNFA) gene are implicated in susceptibility to tuberculosis (TB). However, the results are inconsistent. We performed this meta-analysis to estimate the association between polymorphisms in the TNFA gene and TB susceptibility. Methods: Relevant studies published before March 2012 were identified by searching PubMed, IS! web of knowledge, EBSCO and CNKI. The strength of relationship between the TNFA gene and TB susceptibility was assessed using odds ratios (ORs). Results: A total number of twenty-three case-control studies including 3630 cases and 4055 controls were identified referring to three previously chosen single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs): -308G>A, -863C>A and -857C>T. No association was found between -308G>A, -863C>A and TB susceptibility: -308G>A (GG + GA vs. AA): OR 0.85, 95%CI: 0.55-1.30, P = 0.44; -863C>A (CC + CA vs. AA): OR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.84-1.81, P = 0.83. Increased risk of TB was associated with -857C>T in the dominant genetic model (CC + CT vs. TT: OR 2.13, 95%CI: 1.25-3.63, P = 0.01), the heterozygote comparison (CT vs. TT: OR 2.69, 95%CI: 1.44-5.02, P = 0.00) and the homozygote comparison (CC vs. TT: OR 2.08, 95%CI: 122-3.53, P= 0.01) in Asian subjects. Conclusion: There is an increased association between TNFA -857C>T polymorphism and TB risk among Asian subjects. No association was found between -308G>A and -863C>A with TB risk. Due to several limitations in the present study, well-designed epidemiological studies with large sample size among different ethnicities should be performed in the future. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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