| Literature DB >> 27917334 |
Yong Li1, Hong-Bo Tang1, Jing Bian1, Bin-Bin Li1, Tai-Fang Gong1.
Abstract
Certain studies have suggested that the tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) -857 C/T polymorphism is associated with risk of ankylosing spondylitis. However, the conclusions remain controversial. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to provide a more precise conclusion. Such databases as PubMed, Embase, CBM, CNKI, and Wanfang Data were searched to identify relevant studies up to August 26, 2015. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to estimate the association between TNF-α -857 C/T polymorphism and ankylosing spondylitis susceptibility. A total of 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, an elevated risk between TNF-α -857 C/T polymorphism and ankylosing spondylitis was observed in three genetic model (T vs. C: OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.19-2.92; CT vs. CC: OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.49-4.23; TT + CT vs. CC: OR 2.46, 95% CI 1.40-4.30), except in homozygote model (TT vs. CC: OR 2.41, 95% CI 0.96-6.06) and recessive model (TT vs. CT + CC: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.71-3.35). Sensitivity analysis showed the overall results were robust. Subgroup analyses according to Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and ethnicity showed that the increased risk of ankylosing spondylitis were predominant in Asian population. This meta-analysis indicated that TNF-α -857 C/T polymorphism might increase the susceptibility of ankylosing spondylitis, especially in Asians. Further studies were needed to verify the conclusion.Entities:
Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis; Meta-analysis; Polymorphism, genetic; Tumor necrosis factor-α
Year: 2016 PMID: 27917334 PMCID: PMC5099303 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3603-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study selection
Characteristics of individual studies included in the meta-analysis
| References | Country (ethnicity) | Sample size | Genotyping method | Case | HWE | Control | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case | Control | CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | ||||
| Chen et al. ( | China (Asian) | 107 | 116 | RTDF-PRCR | 32 | 61 | 14 | Yes | 88 | 27 | 1 |
| Lin ( | China (Asian) | 136 | 127 | SSP-PCR | 87 | 48 | 1 | Yes | 90 | 35 | 2 |
| Li et al. ( | China (Asian) | 164 | 121 | AS-PCR | 58 | 130 | 6 | Yes | 55 | 58 | 8 |
| Yang et al. ( | China (Asian) | 54 | 42 | Gene chip | 29 | 23 | 2 | Yes | 34 | 8 | 0 |
| Chatzikyriakidou et al. ( | Greece (Caucasian) | 49 | 68 | PCR-RFLP | 33 | 3 | 13 | No | 40 | 5 | 23 |
| Cai et al. ( | China (Asian) | 112 | 96 | SSP-PCR | 34 | 69 | 9 | Yes | 72 | 22 | 2 |
| Mei et al. ( | China (Asian) | 83 | 200 | PCR | 36 | 42 | 5 | Yes | 144 | 49 | 7 |
| Chung et al. ( | Korea (Asian) | 119 | 135 | PCR-RFLP | 95 | 24 | 0 | Yes | 90 | 43 | 2 |
| Tong et al. ( | China (Asian) | 106 | 106 | MALDI-TOF | 39 | 47 | 20 | Yes | 72 | 29 | 5 |
| Ji et al. ( | China (Asian) | 57 | 30 | PCR-RFLP | 10 | 44 | 3 | Yes | 14 | 14 | 2 |
PB population-based, HB hospital-based, HWE Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium
The results of meta-analysis with five genetic models
| Genetic model | Subgroups | No. of studies | Heterogeneity | Test of association | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model |
|
| OR | 95% CI |
| |||
| T versus C | Overall | 10 | R | <0.001 | 88.0 | 1.86 | 1.19–2.92 | 0.007 |
| HWE (yes) | 9 | R | <0.001 | 87.1 | 2.07 | 1.32–3.26 | 0.002 | |
| Asian | 9 | R | <0.001 | 87.1 | 2.07 | 1.32–3.26 | 0.002 | |
| Caucasian | 1 | R | – | – | 0.07 | 0.40–1.22 | 0.21 | |
| TT versus CC | Overall | 10 | R | <0.001 | 71.9 | 2.41 | 0.96–6.06 | 0.06 |
| HWE (yes) | 9 | R | 0.004 | 64.7 | 2.97 | 1.14–7.75 | 0.03 | |
| Asian | 9 | R | 0.004 | 64.7 | 2.97 | 1.14–7.75 | 0.03 | |
| Caucasian | 1 | R | – | – | 0.69 | 0.30–1.56 | 0.37 | |
| CT versus CC | Overall | 10 | R | <0.001 | 84.0 | 2.51 | 1.49–4.23 | 0.001 |
| HWE (yes) | 9 | R | <0.001 | 85.1 | 2.72 | 1.59–4.66 | <0.001 | |
| Asian | 9 | R | <0.001 | 85.1 | 2.72 | 1.59–4.66 | <0.001 | |
| Caucasian | 1 | R | – | – | 0.73 | 0.16–3.2 | 0.68 | |
| TT + CT versus CC | Overall | 10 | R | <0.001 | 87.9 | 2.46 | 1.40–4.30 | 0.002 |
| HWE (yes) | 9 | R | <0.001 | 87.5 | 2.80 | 1.59–4.96 | <0.001 | |
| Asian | 9 | R | <0.001 | 87.5 | 2.80 | 1.59–4.96 | <0.001 | |
| Caucasian | 1 | R | – | – | 0.69 | 0.32–1.49 | 0.35 | |
| TT versus CC + CT | Overall | 10 | R | 0.005 | 62.1 | 1.54 | 0.71–3.35 | 0.28 |
| HWE (yes) | 9 | R | 0.011 | 59.8 | 1.77 | 0.74–4.25 | 0.20 | |
| Asian | 9 | R | 0.011 | 59.8 | 1.77 | 0.74–4.25 | 0.20 | |
| Caucasian | 1 | R | – | – | 0.71 | 0.31–1.59 | 0.40 | |
HWE Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, R random-effect model, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval
Fig. 2Forest plots of the meta-analysis for T versus C genetic model
Fig. 3Sensitivity analysis of the T versus C genetic model
Fig. 4Begg’s funnel plot of the T versus C genetic model