| Literature DB >> 28050060 |
Junfei Zhu1, Bin Guo2, Min Fu1, Wushuang Guo1, Yifang Yuan1, He Yuan1, Suhan Zhang3, Haiyang Yu4.
Abstract
Introduction. Chronic Periodontitis (CP) is suggested to be related to gene variations. Present study aims to quantitatively estimate the association between interleukin-6- (IL-6-) 174G/C polymorphism and CP susceptibility. Materials and Methods. Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched up to May 2016. The meta-analyses were performed using STATA 12.0. Results. 21 studies were yielded. Significant associations were found under heterozygote comparison and dominant model in studies fulfilling HWE (GC versus GG: OR = 0.690, 95% CI = 0.560-0.849, P = 0.000; CC + GC versus GG: OR = 0.690, 95% CI = 0.568-0.838, P < 0.001); significant associations were found under heterozygote comparison and dominant model in Caucasian studies fulfilling HWE (GC versus GG: OR = 0.752, 95% CI = 0.577-0.980, P = 0.035; CC + GC versus GG: OR = 0.737, 95% CI = 0.576-0.944, P = 0.016); significant associations were found under allele comparison, heterozygote comparison, and dominant model in Brazilian population (C versus G: OR = 0.648, 95% CI = 0.497-0.845, P = 0.001; GC versus GG: OR = 0.621, 95% CI = 0.441-0.876, P = 0.007; CC + GC versus GG: OR = 0.649, 95% CI = 0.470-0.896, P = 0.009). Conclusion. IL-6 174 polymorphism is associated with CP susceptibility. In Brazilian and Caucasian population, IL-6 174 GG genotype plays as a risk factor to CP.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28050060 PMCID: PMC5168484 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9612421
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Figure 1Selection process of the included study.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| Author and Year | Country (ethnicity) | Type | Group size | Smoke status | Control | Gender | Quality | HWE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Babel et al. 2006 [ | Germany (Caucasian) | Case-control | 124/116 | Unknown | HC | Matched | 7/9 | Fulfilled |
| Brett et al. 2005 [ | UK (Caucasian) | Case-control | 106/99 | Mixed | CC | Matched | 7/9 | 0.000 |
| Casado et al. 2013 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 43/60 | Unknown | HC | Not matched | 6/9 | 0.805 |
| Costa et al. 2010 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 38/27 | No smoke | CC | Not matched | 7/9 | 1.000 |
| Dosseva-Panova et al. 2015 [ | Bulgaria (Caucasian) | Case-control | 30/10 | Unknown | HC | Not matched | 5/9 | 0.035 |
| Fan et al. 2011 [ | China (Asian) | Case-control | 178/130 | Mixed | CC | Not matched | 8/9 | 0.964 |
| Gabriela Teixeira et al. 2014 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 134/196 | Mixed | CC | Matched | 7/9 | 0.821 |
| Holla et al. 2004 [ | Czech (Caucasian) | Case-control | 148/107 | Mixed | CC | Matched | 8/9 | 0.783 |
| Ianni et al. 2013 [ | Italy (Caucasian) | Case-control | 77/278 | No smoke | CC | Not matched | 7/9 | 0.984 |
| Jansson et al. 2006 [ | Sweden (Caucasian) | Case-control | 19/31 | Unknown | HC | Matched | 6/9 | 0.025 |
| Kalburgi et al. 2010 [ | India (Indian) | Case-control | 15/15 | No smoke | HC | Matched | 7/9 | 0.217 |
| Loo et al. 2012 [ | China (Asian) | Case-control | 440/850 | Unknown | CC | Matched | 8/9 | 0.000 |
| Moreira et al. 2007 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 155/54 | Mixed | HC | Matched | 6/9 | 0.106 |
| Scapoli et al. 2012 [ | Italy (Caucasian) | Case-control | 177/117 | Mixed | HC | Matched | 5/9 | 0.000 |
| Scapoli et al. 2015 [ | Italy (Caucasian) | Case-control | 284/211 | No smoke | HC | Not matched | 6/9 | 0.133 |
| Stefani et al. 2013 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 21/21 | No smoke | HC | Matched | 6/9 | 0.760 |
| Tervonen et al. 2007 [ | Finland (Caucasian) | Case-control | 51/178 | Mixed | CC | Matched | 8/9 | NA |
| Tian et al. 2013 [ | China (Asian) | Case-control | 122/532 | No smoke | HC | Not matched | 6/9 | 0.000 |
| Trevilatto et al. 2003 [ | Brazil (Caucasian) | Case-control | 48/36 | Unknown | HC | Matched | 7/9 | 0.142 |
| Trindade et al. 2013 [ | Brazil (Brazilian) | Case-control | 49/60 | No smoke | HC | Not matched | 6/9 | Fulfilled |
| Xiao et al. 2009 [ | China (Asian) | Case-control | 157/132 | Mixed | CC | Not matched | 7/9 | 0.502 |
HC = hospital control and CC = community control.
Figure 2Heterozygote comparison and dominant model of studies fulfilling HWE. (a) GC versus GG (b) GC + CC versus GG.
Figure 3Allele comparison, heterozygote comparison, and dominant model of Brazilian subgroup. (a) C versus G; (b) GC + CC versus GG; (c) GC versus GG.
Figure 4Heterozygote comparison and dominant model of Caucasian studies fulfilling HWE. (a) GC versus GG and (b) GC + CC versus GG.
Overall and subgroup meta-analyses.
| Genetic models and subgroups | Number of studies | Association | Heterogeneity | Model of meta-analysis | Publication bias ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) |
|
|
| ||||
| C VS G | 19 | 0.979 (0.714–1.344) | 0.897 | 87.3 | 0.000 | Random | 0.517 |
| HWE fulfilled | 12 | 0.770 (0.558–1.064) | 0.114 | 72.4 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Caucasian | 8 | 0.957 (0.670–1.366) | 0.807 | 80.0 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Brazilian | 6 | 0.648 (0.497–0.845) | 0.001 | 49.0 | 0.081 | Fixed | |
| Asian | 4 | 1.881 (0.667–5.305) | 0.233 | 93.7 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Indian | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| No smoke | 7 | 1.032 (0.463–2.296) | 0.939 | 94.7 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Matched gender ratio | 10 | 1.161 (0.869–1.552) | 0.311 | 73.2 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Community control | 8 | 1.040 (0.760–1.424) | 0.805 | 10.3 | 0.001 | Random | |
| Caucasian (HWE fulfilled) | 4 | 0.814 (0.559–1.184) | 0.281 | 73.6 | 0.281 | Random | |
|
| |||||||
| GC VS GG | 18 | 0.897 (0.516–1.558) | 0.699 | 89.8 | 0.000 | Random | 0.035 |
| HWE fulfilled | 11 | 0.690 (0.560–0.849) | 0.000 | 27.3 | 0.184 | Fixed | |
| Caucasian | 8 | 1.066 (0.543–2.093) | 0.852 | 84.9 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Brazilian | 5 | 0.621 (0.441–0.876) | 0.007 | 6.1 | 0.372 | Fixed | |
| Asian | 4 | 1.673 (0.360–7.783) | 0.512 | 89.1 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Indian | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| No smoke | 5 | 0.663 (0.506–0.871) | 0.003 | 25.2 | 0.245 | Fixed | |
| Matched gender ratio | 10 | 1.211 (0.574–2.555) | 0.615 | 91.4 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Community control | 8 | 1.120 (0.445–2.820) | 0.809 | 93.0 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Caucasian in HWE | 4 | 0.752 (0.577–0.980) | 0.035 | 55.7 | 0.080 | Fixed | |
|
| |||||||
| CC + GC VS GG | 19 | 0.907 (0.616–1.335) | 0.621 | 83.9 | 0.000 | Random | 0.021 |
| HWE fulfilled | 12 | 0.690 (0.568–0.838) | 0.000 | 44.3 | 0.049 | Fixed | |
| Caucasian | 9 | 0.974 (0.640–1.482) | 0.902 | 72.4 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Brazilian | 5 | 0.649 (0.470–0.896) | 0.009 | 27.8 | 0.236 | Fixed | |
| Asian | 4 | 2.692 (2.160–3.354) | 0.000 | 0.0 | 0.830 | Fixed | |
| Indian | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| No smoke | 6 | 0.611 (0.274–1.361) | 0.228 | 88.5 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Matched gender ratio | 11 | 1.034 (0.652–1.641) | 0.886 | 81.0 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Community control | 9 | 1.801 (0.575–1.018) | 0.952 | 85.2 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Caucasian in HWE | 4 | 0.737 (0.576–0.944) | 0.016 | 60.8 | 0.054 | Fixed | |
|
| |||||||
| CC VS GG + GC | 17 | 0.846 (0.404–1.772) | 0.657 | 92.5 | 0.000 | Random | 0.762 |
| HWE fulfilled | 10 | 0.896 (0.361–2.226) | 0.813 | 86.5 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Caucasian | 9 | 1.127 (0.495–2.565) | 0.775 | 89.0 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Brazilian | 5 | 0.834 (0.454–1.532) | 0.559 | 40.0 | 0.155 | Fixed | |
| Asian | 2 | 0.996 (0.032–31.216) | 0.998 | 99.2 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Indian | 1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |
| No smoke | 6 | 0.625 (0.157–2.488) | 0.505 | 93.2 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Matched gender ratio | 12 | 0.888 (0.357–2.214) | 0.799 | 91.8 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Community control | 6 | 1.009 (0.230–4.436) | 0.990 | 95.0 | 0.000 | Random | |
| Caucasian in HWE | 4 | 1.788 (0.398–8.028) | 0.448 | 94.2 | 0.000 | Random | |
NA = not available.
Meta-regression analyses (P value).
| Genetic model | HWE | Smoke | Gender | Method | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C versus G | 0.121 | 0.832 | 0.224 | 0.805 | 0.539 |
| GC VS GG | 0.004 | 0.100 | 0.113 | 0.689 | 0.537 |
| CC + GC VS GG | 0.000 | 0.267 | 0.448 | 0.870 | 0.736 |
| CC VS GG + GC | 0.895 | 0.624 | 0.877 | 0.309 | 0.335 |