| Literature DB >> 25366166 |
Zhijun Wu, Yuqing Lou, Xiaochun Qiu, Yan Liu, Lin Lu, Qiujing Chen, Wei Jin1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized controlled trials have challenged the concept that increased high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are associated with coronary artery disease (CAD) risk reduction. The causal role of HDL-C in the development of atherosclerosis remains unclear. To increase precision and to minimize residual confounding, we exploited the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP)-TaqIB polymorphism as an instrument based on Mendelian randomization.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25366166 PMCID: PMC4258818 DOI: 10.1186/s12881-014-0118-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Genet ISSN: 1471-2350 Impact factor: 2.103
Figure 1Flow diagram of the search strategy and study selection for the meta-analysis.
The distribution of the Taq1B allele and genotype among CAD and controls, and P value of HWE in controls
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Arca M | 415 | 403 | 60.4 | 58.1 | 39.6 | 41.9 | 153 | 134 | 187 | 184 | 68 | 71 | 0.57 |
| Bhanushali AA | 90 | 150 | 59.4 | 50.3 | 40.6 | 49.7 | 33 | 37 | 40 | 76 | 17 | 42 | 0.820 |
| Blankenberg S | 1214 | 574 | 60.8 | 57.2 | 39.3 | 42.8 | 407 | 175 | 644 | 303 | 149 | 93 | 0.047 |
| Corella D | 557 | 1180 | 62.4 | 63.6 | 37.6 | 36.4 | 224 | 482 | 247 | 537 | 86 | 161 | 0.557 |
| Dedoussis GV | 237 | 237 | 60.5 | 58.2 | 39.5 | 41.8 | 83 | 78 | 121 | 120 | 33 | 39 | 0.530 |
| Durlach A | 96 | 138 | -a | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 13 | 39 | - |
| Eiriksdottir G | 388 | 794 | 59.1 | 52.6 | 40.9 | 47.4 | 128 | 194 | 191 | 396 | 59 | 155 | 0.072 |
| Falchi A | 100 | 100 | 58.5 | 56.0 | 41.5 | 44.0 | 30 | 30 | 57 | 52 | 13 | 18 | 0.581 |
| Freeman DJ | 498 | 1108 | 58.8 | 55.2 | 41.2 | 44.8 | 164 | 339 | 259 | 541 | 76 | 225 | 0.733 |
| Fumeron F | 608 | 724 | 60.0 | 59.5 | 40.0 | 40.5 | 209 | 258 | 312 | 346 | 87 | 120 | 0.826 |
| Horne BD | 3223 | 1588 | 57.5 | 56.0 | 42.5 | 44.0 | 1064 | 508 | 1579 | 762 | 580 | 318 | 0.293 |
| Hsieh MC | 101 | 264 | 42.1 | 29.7 | 57.9 | 70.3 | 19 | 23 | 47 | 111 | 35 | 130 | 0.920 |
| Izar MC | 386 | 604 | 40.1 | 43.0 | 59.9 | 57.0 | 32 | 66 | 238 | 374 | 107 | 145 | 0.000 |
| Jensen MK [HPFS] | 259 | 513 | 58.7 | 58.9 | 41.3 | 41.1 | 89 | 180 | 126 | 244 | 44 | 89 | 0.686 |
| Jensen MK [NHS] | 246 | 486 | 58.5 | 58.3 | 41.5 | 41.7 | 84 | 166 | 120 | 235 | 42 | 85 | 0.907 |
| Kaestner S | 204 | 35 | 53.9 | 60.0 | 46.1 | 40.0 | 53 | 13 | 114 | 16 | 37 | 6 | 0.778 |
| Kawasaki I | 24 | 361 | 79.2 | 53.6 | 20.8 | 46.4 | 15 | 101 | 8 | 185 | 1 | 75 | 0.565 |
| Keavney B | 4685 | 3460 | 57.7 | 56.9 | 42.3 | 43.1 | 1477 | 1100 | 2175 | 1527 | 790 | 646 | 0.005 |
| Kolovou G | 374 | 97 | 60.7 | 46.4 | 39.3 | 53.6 | 126 | 22 | 202 | 45 | 46 | 29 | 0.573 |
| Li J | 236 | 54 | 58.8 | 58.8 | 41.2 | 41.3 | 82 | 15 | 73 | 19 | 21 | 6 | 0.997 |
| Liu S | 384 | 384 | 58.1 | 56.9 | 41.9 | 43.1 | 125 | 122 | 196 | 193 | 63 | 69 | 0.628 |
| McCaskie PA | 556 | 2683 | 59.3 | 57.0 | 40.7 | 43.0 | 196 | 860 | 262 | 1328 | 93 | 485 | 0.482 |
| Meiner V | 577 | 659 | 57.1 | 52.6 | 42.9 | 47.4 | 173 | 166 | 282 | 320 | 95 | 134 | 0.383 |
| Mohrschladt MF | 116 | 184 | 56.9 | 54.9 | 43.1 | 45.1 | 36 | 57 | 60 | 88 | 20 | 39 | 0.642 |
| Muendlein A | 332 | 225 | 62.0 | 57.3 | 38.0 | 42.7 | 125 | 71 | 162 | 116 | 45 | 38 | 0.420 |
| Padmaja N | 504 | 338 | 58.5 | 49.3 | 41.5 | 50.7 | 163 | 86 | 264 | 161 | 77 | 91 | 0.386 |
| Park KW | 119 | 106 | - | - | - | - | 49 | 30 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Poduri A | 265 | 150 | 64.3 | 49.3 | 35.7 | 50.7 | 117 | 33 | 107 | 82 | 41 | 35 | 0.252 |
| Porchay-Balderelli I | 223 | 2901 | 63.9 | 59.5 | 36.1 | 40.5 | 95 | 1012 | 95 | 1431 | 33 | 458 | 0.198 |
| Qin Q | 249 | 167 | 58.8 | 58.4 | 41.2 | 41.6 | 81 | 49 | 131 | 97 | 37 | 21 | 0.012 |
| Rahimi Z | 207 | 92 | 62.3 | 50.0 | 37.7 | 50.0 | 57 | 20 | 144 | 52 | 6 | 20 | 0.211 |
| Rejeb J | 212 | 104 | 71.0 | 65.9 | 29.0 | 34.1 | 104 | 45 | 93 | 47 | 15 | 12 | 0.959 |
| Schierer A | 349 | 2082 | 47.0 | 49.0 | 53.0 | 51.0 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Tenkanen H | 72 | 226 | 54.2 | 55.5 | 45.8 | 44.5 | 19 | 64 | 40 | 123 | 13 | 39 | 0.125 |
| Van Acker BA | 792 | 539 | 59.4 | 58.1 | 40.6 | 41.9 | 275 | 171 | 391 | 284 | 126 | 84 | 0.06 |
| Wang SH | 111 | 75 | 58.6 | 56.0 | 41.4 | 44.0 | 38 | 22 | 54 | 41 | 19 | 12 | 0.327 |
| Wang W | 128 | 247 | 64.8 | 54.0 | 35.2 | 46.0 | 50 | 72 | 66 | 123 | 12 | 52 | 0.968 |
| Whiting BM | 3319 | 1385 | 58.1 | 56.7 | 41.9 | 43.3 | 792 | 280 | 1201 | 377 | 402 | 170 | 0.039 |
| Wu JH | 200 | 285 | 56.7 | 52.0 | 43.3 | 48.0 | 45 | 63 | 79 | 159 | 25 | 52 | 0.007 |
| Yan SK | 106 | 64 | 60.4 | 56.3 | 39.6 | 43.8 | 41 | 19 | 46 | 34 | 19 | 11 | 0.526 |
| Yang J | 83 | 163 | 62.7 | 52.1 | 37.3 | 47.9 | 31 | 47 | 42 | 76 | 10 | 40 | 0.401 |
| Yilmaz H | 173 | 111 | 59.0 | 55.5 | 41.0 | 44.5 | 66 | 39 | 72 | 46 | 35 | 26 | 0.093 |
| Zhang GB | 88 | 94 | 58.0 | 60.6 | 42.0 | 39.4 | 31 | 32 | 40 | 50 | 17 | 12 | 0.268 |
| Zhang YX | 334 | 301 | 67.7 | 65.1 | 32.3 | 34.9 | 174 | 136 | 104 | 120 | 56 | 45 | 0.034 |
| Zhao SP | 238 | 203 | 62.0 | 56.4 | 38.0 | 43.6 | 95 | 60 | 105 | 109 | 38 | 34 | 0.191 |
| Zheng KQ | 203 | 100 | 60.6 | 60.5 | 39.4 | 39.5 | 66 | 33 | 114 | 55 | 23 | 12 | 0.132 |
| Zhou DF | 47 | 330 | 57.4 | 68.0 | 42.6 | 32.0 | 17 | 157 | 20 | 135 | 10 | 38 | 0.280 |
| Total | 23928 | 27068 | 58.6 | 56.3 | 41.4 | 43.7 | 7533 | 7667 | 10910 | 11720 | 3634 | 4521 | |
HWE: Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. The P value of HWE determined by the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test in control groups; a: No data.
Summary estimates for ORs and 95% CI in different subgroups under various genetic contrasts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total studies | |||||||
| Allele comparison | 45(23,713/26,824) | 0.000 | 55.2 | 0.000 | 0.88 | 0.84–0.92 | |
| (B2 versus B1) | |||||||
| Dominant model | 45(23,483/24,848) | 0.000 | 48.6 | 0.000 | 0.85 | 0.79–0.91 | |
| (B1B2 + B2B2 versus B1B1) | |||||||
| Recessive model | 45(23,460/24,880) | 0.000 | 53.7 | 0.000 | 0.81 | 0.74–0.88 | |
| (B2B2 versus B1B2 + B1B1) | |||||||
| Homozygote comparison | 44(23,364/24,742) | 0.000 | 58.1 | 0.000 | 0.76 | 0.68–0.84 | |
| (B2B2 versus B1B1) | |||||||
| Studies comfirming to HWE | |||||||
| Allele comparison | 38(13,326/20,048) | 0.000 | 56.6 | 0.000 | 0.86 | 0.81–0.91 | |
| Dominant model | 38(13,096/18,072) | 0.002 | 45.1 | 0.000 | 0.82 | 0.76–0.89 | |
| Recessive model | 38(13,073/18,104) | 0.000 | 55.1 | 0.000 | 0.77 | 0.69–0.86 | |
| Homozygote comparison | 37(12,977/17,966) | 0.000 | 59.2 | 0.000 | 0.72 | 0.63–0.82 | |
| Subgroups analysis after excluding HWE-deviation studies | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Allele comparison | Asian | 16(2,780/4,767) | 0.000 | 67.7 | 0.002 | 0.77 | 0.66–0.90 |
| Caucasian | 22(10,546/15,281) | 0.222 | 18.0 | 0.000 | 0.91 | 0.87–0.95 | |
| Dominant model | Asian | 16(2,550/2,791) | 0.022 | 46.3 | 0.000 | 0.65 | 0.54–0.79 |
| Caucasian | 22(10,546/15,281) | 0.505 | 0 | 0.001 | 0.90 | 0.85–0.96 | |
| Recessive model | Asian | 15(2,431/2,685) | 0.000 | 66.7 | 0.008 | 0.66 | 0.49–0.90 |
| Caucasian | 23(10,642/15,419) | 0.106 | 27.9 | 0.000 | 0.84 | 0.76–0.92 | |
| Homozygote comparison | Asian | 15(2,431/2,685) | 0.000 | 66.6 | 0.000 | 0.54 | 0.38–0.76 |
| Caucasian | 22(10,546/15,281) | 0.159 | 23.2 | 0.000 | 0.82 | 0.74–0.90 | |
|
| |||||||
| Allele comparison | prospective | 7(2,555/7,366) | 0.116 | 41.3 | 0.061 | 0.92 | 0.84–1.00 |
| retrospective | 31(10,771/12,682) | 0.000 | 59.2 | 0.000 | 0.84 | 0.78–0.90 | |
| Dominant model | prospective | 7(2,555/7,366) | 0.161 | 35 | 0.081 | 0.89 | 0.79–1.01 |
| retrospective | 31(10,518/10,738) | 0.002 | 47.3 | 0.000 | 0.79 | 0.72–0.88 | |
| Recessive model | prospective | 7(2,555/7,366) | 0.219 | 27.4 | 0.119 | 0.89 | 0.76–1.03 |
| retrospective | 31(10,518/10,738) | 0.000 | 58.1 | 0.000 | 0.73 | 0.64–0.84 | |
| Homozygote comparison | prospective | 7(2,555/7,366) | 0.106 | 42.7 | 0.080 | 0.84 | 0.70–1.02 |
| retrospective | 30(10,422/10,600) | 0.000 | 61.6 | 0.000 | 0.67 | 0.57–0.79 | |
|
| |||||||
| Allele comparison | P-B | 10(4,782/8,365) | 0.308 | 14.7 | 0.015 | 0.93 | 0.88–0.99 |
| H-B | 28(8,544/11,683) | 0.000 | 60.6 | 0.000 | 0.82 | 0.75–0.89 | |
| Dominant model | P-B | 10(4,782/8,365) | 0.361 | 8.8 | 0.025 | 0.91 | 0.84–0.99 |
| H-B | 28(8,314/9,707) | 0.002 | 49.5 | 0.000 | 0.76 | 0.68–0.86 | |
| Recessive model | P-B | 10(4,782/8,365) | 0.568 | 0 | 0.055 | 0.91 | 0.82–1.00 |
| H-B | 28(8,291/9,739) | 0.000 | 59.1 | 0.000 | 0.70 | 0.59–0.82 | |
| Homozygote comparison | P-B | 10(4,782/8,365) | 0.292 | 16.4 | 0.020 | 0.86 | 0.76–0.98 |
| H-B | 27(8,195/9,601) | 0.000 | 62.7 | 0.000 | 0.63 | 0.52–0.77 | |
|
| |||||||
| Allele comparison | CAD | 31(10,824/16,970) | 0.000 | 62 | 0.000 | 0.85 | 0.79–0.91 |
| MI | 5(2,029/2,787) | 0.200 | 33.2 | 0.032 | 0.89 | 0.80–0.99 | |
| ACS | 2(473/291) | 0.741 | 0 | 0.517 | 0.93 | 0.74–1.17 | |
| Dominant model | CAD | 31(10,594/14,994) | 0.001 | 49.5 | 0.000 | 0.81 | 0.73–0.89 |
| MI | 5(2,029/2,787) | 0.123 | 44.8 | 0.172 | 0.88 | 0.74–1.06 | |
| ACS | 2(473/291) | 0.493 | 0 | 0.357 | 0.86 | 0.61–1.19 | |
| Recessive model | CAD | 31(10,571/15,026) | 0.000 | 62.8 | 0.000 | 0.75 | 0.66–0.87 |
| MI | 5(2,029/2,787) | 0.775 | 0 | 0.006 | 0.80 | 0.69–0.94 | |
| ACS | 2(473/291) | 0.905 | 0 | 0.356 | 0.81 | 0.52–1.27 | |
| Homozygote comparison | CAD | 30(10,475/14,888) | 0.000 | 65.2 | 0.000 | 0.69 | 0.59–0.82 |
| MI | 5(2,029/2,787) | 0.300 | 17.9 | 0.008 | 0.76 | 0.63–0.93 | |
| ACS | 2(473/291) | 0.723 | 0 | 0.273 | 0.76 | 0.46–1.24 | |
aTest for overall effect; P-B: population-based, H-B: hospital-based.
Figure 2Meta-analysis for the overall association between the TaqIB polymorphism and CAD under the allele comparison (B2 versus B1). ‘Events’ indicates the total number of the B2 allele. ‘Total’ indicates the total number of B2 allele plus B1 allele.
Figure 3Begg’s funnel plot analysis to detect publication bias for allele comparison (B2 versus B1) of the TaqIB polymorphism (a) and after excluding the HWE-violating studies (b).
Figure 4Meta-regression of overall smoking proportion (a) and averag HDL-C level (b) on in-allele risk estimates of the TaqIB polymorphism. OR is expressed as the middle of the blue solid circle whose upper and lower extremes represent the corresponding 95% CI. The green dotted line is plotted by fitting OR with overall smoking proportion (a) and averaged HDL-C level (b) for each included study.
Figure 5Meta-analysis for the association between the TaqIB polymorphism and circulating HDL-C level among Caucasians under the dominant model (B2B2 + B1B2 versus B1B1). ‘SD’ indicates standard deviation. ‘Total’ indicates the number of measured participants.
Expected power analysis of the TaqIB polymorphism
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| Arca M | 98.2 | 100 |
| Corella D | 100 | 100 |
| Eiriksdottir G | 99.6 | 100 |
| Freeman DJ | 100 | 100 |
| Fumeron F | 99.9 | 100 |
| Jensen MK [HPFS] | 96.1 | 100 |
| Jensen MK [NHS] | 95.2 | 100 |
| Liu S | 97.5 | 100 |
| Tenkanen H | 55.8 | 95.1 |
| Yilmaz H | 64.2 | 98 |
| Total | 100 | 100 |
OR: Odds ratio. aassuming OR of 1.5 and 2.0 for differences in allele frequency, the minor allele frequency of 0.38 and Type I error probability α of 0.05.
Mendelian randomization analysis for the association of genetically raised HDL-C with CAD risk using TaqIB polymorphism as an instrument
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Per 0.03 mmol/L (1 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.99 | 0.98–1.00 | 0.069 |
| Per 0.05 mmol/L (2 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.98 | 0.96–1.00 | 0.069 |
| Per 0.10 mmol/L (4 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.97 | 0.93–1.00 | 0.069 |
| Per 0.20 mmol/L (8 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.94 | 0.87–1.01 | 0.069 |
| Per 0.30 mmol/L (10 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.91 | 0.81–1.01 | 0.070 |
| Per 0.50 mmol/L (20 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.87 | 0.72–1.01 | 0.071 |
| Per 1.00 mmol/L (40 mg/dL) increase in HDL-C | 0.79 | 0.54–1.03 | 0.082 |
a: Test for overall effect.