| Literature DB >> 25780529 |
Xinjuan Pan1, Ping Wang2, Xinjuan Yin3, Xiaozhuan Liu3, Di Li3, Xing Li3, Yongchao Wang3, Hongle Li3, Zengli Yu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) is thought to be involved in the development of nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (NSCL/P). However, conflicting results have been obtained when evaluating the association between maternal MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms and the risk of NSCL/P. In light of this gap, a meta-analysis of all eligible case-control studies was conducted in the present study.Entities:
Keywords: Cleft Lip; Meta-Analysis; Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase
Year: 2015 PMID: 25780529 PMCID: PMC4355933 DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2015.4186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Fertil Steril ISSN: 2008-0778
Fig 1A flow diagram for selection of studies and specific reasons for exclusion in this meta-analysis. NSCL/P; Nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate, HWE; Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and MTHFR; Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase.
Main characteristics of MTHFR C677T polymorphism studies included in the meta-analysis
| Case | Control | Genotype (case/control) | Allele (case/control) | HWE | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First author | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Source of | n | n | CC | CT | TT | C n (%) | T n (%) | (P)## |
| 2007 | Brazil | White | HB | 110 | 100 | 44/38 | 45/52 | 21/10 | 133(60)/128(64) | 87(40)/72(36) | 0.20 | |
| 2008 | England | White | PB | 96 | 226 | 46/86 | 42/119 | 8/21 | 134(70)/291(64)# | 58(30)/161(36) | 0.03 | |
| 2009 | China | Asian | HB | 97 | 102 | 26/20 | 49/57 | 22/25 | 101(52)/97(48) | 93(48)/107(52) | 0.22 | |
| 2012 | China | Asian | HB | 89 | 64 | 10/15 | 41/39 | 38/10 | 61(34)/69(54) | 117(66)/59(46) | 0.07 | |
| 2011 | Ukraine | European | PB | 27 | 50 | 19/34 | 2/2 | 6/14 | 40(74)/70(70) | 14(26)/30(30) | 0.05 | |
| 2009 | India | Asian | PB | 116 | 214 | 78/176 | 37/36 | 1/2 | 193(83)/388(91) | 39(17)/40(9) | 0.92 | |
| 2010 | Brazil | Mixed | HB | 106 | 184 | 49/95 | 50/72 | 7/17 | 148(70)/262(71) | 64(30)/106(29) | 0.53 | |
| 2004 | Brazil | Mixed | HB | 336 | 644 | 174/327 | 131/269 | 31/48 | 479(71)/923(72) | 193(29)/365(28) | 0.47 | |
| Whites | HB | 235 | 474 | 126/235 | 88/202 | 21/37 | 340(72)/672(71)# | 130(28)/276(29)# | 0.48 | |||
| Nonwhites | HB | 77 | 90 | 40/43 | 31/39 | 6/8 | 111(72)/125(69)# | 43(28)/55(31)# | 0.84 | |||
| Unclassified | HB | 24 | 80 | 8/49 | 12/28 | 4/3 | 28(58)/126(79)# | 20(42)/34(21)# | 0.68 | |||
| 1999 | Brazil | White | HB | 59 | 90 | 30/37 | 19/40 | 10/13 | 79 (67)/114 (63) | 39 (33)/66 (37) | 0.68 | |
| 2008 | Ireland | White | HB | 465 | 1599 | 205/715 | 212/721 | 48/163 | 622(67)/2151(67)# | 308(33)/1047(33)# | 0.34 | |
| 2006 | Poland | European | PB | 121 | 81 | 60/42* | 46/33* | 15/6* | 166(69)/117(72) | 76 (31)/45 (28) | 0.89 | |
| 2004 | Italy | White | HB | 104 | 289 | 27/95 | 47/151 | 30/43 | 101(49)/341(59) | 107(51)/237(41) | 0.17 | |
| 2003 | Thailand | Asian | PB | 67 | 202 | 46/154 | 19/46 | 2/2 | 111(83)/354(88) | 23(17)/50(12) | 0.48 | |
| 2009 | Venezuela | Mixed | PB | 168 | 138 | 109/66 | 49/65 | 10/7 | 267(79)/197(71) | 69(21)/79(29) | 0.07 | |
| 2003 | Netherlands | White | PB | 148 | 170 | 78/84 | 55/74 | 15/12 | 211(71)/242(71)# | 85(28)/98(29)# | 0.43 | |
| 1998 | Argentina | White | PB | 93 | 84 | 39/39 | 37/33 | 17/12 | 115(62)/111(66)# | 71(38)/57(34)# | 0.26 | |
PB; Population based, HB; Hospital based, HWE; Hardye Weinberg equilibrium, NA; Not available, a; Not enter final analysis because not fit HWE, *; Numbers calculated by text describe, #; Numbers calculated by the distribution of genotype and ##; P value of HWE were calculated by original data.
Main characteristics of MTHFR A1298C polymorphism studies included in the meta-analysis
| Case | Control | Genotype (case/control) | Allele (case/control) | HWE | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Firstauthor | Year | Country | Ethnicity | Source ofcontrols | n | n | AA | AC | CC | A n (%) | C n (%) | (P)## |
| 2003 | Netherlands | White | PB | 125 | 159 | 57/76 | 52/67 | 16/16 | 166(66)/219(69)# | 84(34)/99(31)# | 0.83 | |
| 2003 | Thailand | Asian | PB | 67 | 202 | 30/108 | 33/80 | 4/14 | 93(69)/296(73) | 41(31)/108(27) | 0.88 | |
| 2004 | Italy | White | HB | 104 | 254 | 57/121 | 36/130 | 11/38 | 150(72)/372(64) | 58(28)/206(36) | 0.74 | |
| 2008 | Ireland | White | HB | 366 | 1050 | 179/519 | 164/439 | 23/92 | 522(71)/1477(70)# | 210(29)/623(30)# | 0.95 | |
| 2009 | India | Asian | PB | 116 | 214 | 64/99 | 47/97 | 5/18 | 175(75)/295(69) | 57(25)/133(31) | 0.4 | |
| 2009 | Venezuela | Mixed | PB | 168 | 138 | 119/101 | 47 /33 | 2 /4 | 285(85)/235(85) | 51(15)/41(15) | 0.52 | |
| 1998 | Argentina | White | PB | 86 | 78 | 56/50 | 27/25 | 3/3 | 114(78)/125(80)# | 33(22)/31(20)# | 0.95 | |
PB; Population based, HB; Hospital based, HWE; Hardye Weinberg equilibrium, NA; Not available, #; Numbers calculated by the distribution of genotype and ##; P value of HWE were calculated by original data.
Results of Meta-analysis of MTHFR C677T polymorphism for studies on NSCL/P
| Groups | Studynumber | Sample size(case/control) | TT versus CC | CT versus CC | CT+TT versus CC (dominant) | TT versus CT+CC (recessive) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR(95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR (95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR (95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR(95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | ||||
| 15 | 2442/4655 | 1.251(1.047,1.494) | 34.4 | 0.076 | 0.982(0.824,1.171) | 50.5 | 0.008# | 1.048(0.884, 1.244) | 53.8 | 0.004# | 1.325(1.124, 1.562) | 31.2 | 0.102 | ||
| Asians | 4 | 369/582 | 1.565(0.887,2.761) | 71.1 | 0.016# | 1.378(0.796, 2.385) | 62.2 | 0.047# | 1.505(0.849, 2.667) | 67.5 | 0.026# | 1.726(1.090, 2.733) | 65.5 | 0.034# | |
| Whites | 8* | 1269/2853 | 1.243(0.992,1.558) | 13.2 | 0.327 | 0.920(0.794, 1.066) | 0.0 | 0.704 | 0.973(0.847, 1.118) | 0 | 0.712 | 1.308(1.059, 1.617) | 27.7 | 0.207 | |
| Others | 6* | 804/1220 | 1.172(0.839,1.639) | 26.1 | 0.238 | 0.969(0.666, 1.410) | 66.6 | 0.010# | 1.010(0.702, 1.452) | 68 | 0.008# | 1.194(0.865, 1.648) | 1.9 | 0.404 | |
| HB | 8 | 1702/3716 | 1.248(1.024,1.520) | 56.9 | 0.01# | 0.957(0.821, 1.114) | 17.3 | 0.279 | 1.026(0.861, 1.223) | 38.4 | 0.093 | 1.324(1.104, 1.588) | 55.3 | 0.013# | |
| PB | 7 | 740/939 | 1.262(0.842,1.892) | 0 | 0.842 | 1.052(0.670, 1.650) | 73.0 | 0.001# | 1.074 (0.723,1.596) | 70.7 | 0.002# | 1.329(0.899, 1.965) | 0 | 0.885 | |
*; In Gaspar et al. (11) study, there have the data not only of whites but also of others, I2; Quantification of the heterogeneity, Ph; P values for heterogeneity from Q test, #; Random-effect model was used when p value for heterogeneity test <0.05, otherwise, fix-effect model was used, PB; Population based and HB; Hospital based.
Fig 2Forest plots of association between MTHFR C677T polymorphism and NSCLP risk.
A; TT vs. CC, B; CT vs. CC, C; CT+TT vs. CC and D; TT vs. CT+CC.
Results of Meta-analysis of MTHFR A1298C polymorphism for studies on NSCL/P
| Groups | Studynumber | Sample size(case/control) | TT versus CC | CT versus CC | CT+TT versus CC (dominant) | TT versus CT+CC (recessive) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR(95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR (95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR (95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | OR(95% CI) | I2(%) | Ph | ||||
| 7 | 1032/2095 | 0.744 | 0 | 0.64 | 0.991 | 32 | 0.184 | 0.952 | 33.5 | 0.172 | 0.766 | 0 | 0.738 | ||
| (0.545,1.016) | (0.844,1.164) | (0.816,1.111) | (0.567,1.036) | ||||||||||||
| Asians | 2 | 183/416 | 0.611 | 15.7 | 0.276 | 0.986 | 69.5 | 0.070 | 0.929 | 73.1 | 0.054 | 0.618 | 0 | 0.479 | |
| (0.281,1.329) | (0.687,1.413) | (0.655,1.316) | (0.289,1.321) | ||||||||||||
| Whites | 4 | 681/1541 | 0.794 | 0 | 0.505 | 0.966 | 39.1 | 0.177 | 0.938 | 38 | 0.184 | 0.822 | 0 | 0.565 | |
| (0.561,1.125) | (0.797,1.170) | (0.780,1.126) | (0.588,1.150) | ||||||||||||
| Others | 1 | 168/138 | 0.424 | - | - | 1.209 | - | - | 1.124 | - | - | 0.404 | - | - | |
| (0.076,2.365) | (0.720,2.029) | (0.680,1.858) | (0.073,2.237) | ||||||||||||
| HB | 2 | 470/1304 | 0.690 | 0 | 0.715 | 0.828 | 79.3 | 0.028# | 0.807 | 76.9 | 0.037# | 0.722 | 0 | 0.797 | |
| (0.459,1.036) | (0.457,1.501) | (0.476,1.366) | (0.487,1.071) | ||||||||||||
| PB | 5 | 562/791 | 0.834 | 0 | 0.448 | 1.038 | 0 | 0.444 | 1.008 | 5.9 | 0.373 | 0.839 | 0 | 0.526 | |
| (0.513,1.358) | (0.818,1.316) | (0.802,1.266) | (0.523,1.345) | ||||||||||||
I2; Quantification of the heterogeneity, Ph; P values for heterogeneity from Q test, #; Random-effect model was used when p value for heterogeneity test <0.05, otherwise, fix-effect model was used, " -"; no I2 and Ph because only 1 study in this subgroup, PB; Population based and HB; Hospital based.
Fig 3Forest plots of association between MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and NSCLP risk.
A; CC vs. AA, B; AC vs. AA, C; AC+CC vs AA and D; CC vs. AC+AA.
Fig 4Funnel plots for included studies of MTHFR C677T polymorphism and NSCLP risk. Begg’s funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits. A; TT vs. CC, B; CT vs. CC, C; CT+TT vs. CC ad D; TT vs. CT+CC.
Fig 5Funnel plots for included studies of MTHFR A1298C polymorphism and NSCLP risk. Begg’s funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits. A; CC vs. AA, B; AC vs. AA, C; AC+CC vs. AA and D; CC vs. AC+AA.
Results of Egger’s and Begg’s tests
| Comparison | Egger’s test | Begg’s test | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t | P | 95% CI | Z | P | |
| TT vs. CC | 1.27 | 0.221 | -0.566, 2.272 | 1.21 | 0.225 |
| CT vs. CC | 0.68 | 0.504 | -1.117, 2.180 | 0.53 | 0.596 |
| CT+TT vs. CC | 1.04 | 0.315 | -0.892, 2.603 | 0.83 | 0.405 |
| TT vs. CT+CC | -0.98 | 0.340 | -2.076, 0.760 | 0.23 | 0.820 |
| CC vs. AA | -0.24 | 0.821 | -2.444, 2.029 | 0.30 | 0.764 |
| AC vs. AA | -0.34 | 0.750 | -4.335, 3.332 | 0.30 | 0.764 |
| CC+AC vs. AA | -0.14 | 0.891 | -4.155, 3.716 | 0.60 | 0.548 |
| CC vs. AC+AA | -0.30 | 0.774 | -2.245, 1.771 | 0.00 | 1.000 |