| Literature DB >> 28222630 |
Sheng Liu1, Hairong Cai1, Weisong Cheng1, Haitao Zhang1, Zhengbo Pan1, Dongguo Wang2.
Abstract
Objective Prostate cancer is a malignant tumour that poses a serious risk to human health. Epidemiological studies suggest that it may be associated with vitamin D receptor gene ( VDR) polymorphisms. Previous work investigated potential risks between Taq I (rs731236) and Bsm I (rs1544410) VDR polymorphisms with prostate cancer in humans; however, results are inconsistent. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis to retrieve genetic association analyses of rs731236 and rs1544410 polymorphisms with prostate cancer from studies published between 2006-2016. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were used to assess genetic associations, and heterogeneity was assessed by Q and I2statistics. Results Our findings suggest a significant association between rs731236 and prostate cancer risk in Asians and African Americans, but rs1544410 was not associated with prostate cancer under three genetic models. Conclusion Future studies including larger sample sizes and the analysis of gene functions are needed to help develop prostate cancer treatment.Entities:
Keywords: Bsm I; Taq I; VDR; meta-analysis; polymorphisms; prostate cancer
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28222630 PMCID: PMC5536582 DOI: 10.1177/0300060516668939
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Int Med Res ISSN: 0300-0605 Impact factor: 1.671
Sample information and VDR polymorphism (Taq I and Bsm I) genotyping data in the current meta-analysis.
| Ethnicity (country) | Author | Year of publication | rs731236 ( | rs1544410 ( | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Case/control genotype | Hardy– Weinberg | Case/control genotype | Hardy– Weinberg | |||||||
| CC | CT | TT | GG | AG | AA | |||||
| Asians (Lebanon) | Ezzi et al. | 2014 | 23/26 | 38/48 | 7/5 | 0.006 | 18/9 | 43/41 | 7/29 | NS |
| Asians (China) | Bai et al. | 2009 | 0/0 | 10/9 | 112/121 | NS | 0/1 | 8/21 | 114/108 | NS |
| Asians (China) | Hu et al. | 2014 | 2/1 | 10/22 | 96/219 | NS | – | – | – | – |
| Asians (Pakistan) | Yousaf et al. | 2014 | 4/32 | 13/11 | 27/76 | 1.01E-17 | – | – | – | – |
| Asians (India) | Manchanda et al. | 2010 | 16/30 | 52/60 | 92/70 | 0.011 | 42/56 | 102/79 | 16/25 | NS |
| Caucasians (America) | Nunes et al. | 2016 | 10/23 | 62/75 | 60/71 | NS | 14/28 | 63/70 | 55/71 | NS |
| Caucasians | Holt et al. | 2009 | 106/108 | 349/328 | 242/261 | NS | 239/255 | 339/331 | 106/115 | NS |
| African Americans | Holt et al. | 2009 | 11/7 | 45/27 | 58/29 | NS | 57/27 | 47/26 | 7/13 | NS |
| African Americans | Jingwi et al. | 2015 | 19/10 | 99/33 | 157/27 | NS | 22/11 | 117/33 | 139/27 | NS |
NS, No statistically significant differences (P ≥ 0.05)
Summary of ORs and 95% CIs under different genetic models and heterogeneity estimates.
| SNP | Genetic model | Population | Pooled odds ratio [95% confidence interval] | Heterogeneity | Begg’s test | Egger’s test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
|
| Additive (T/C) | Asians | 1.224 [0.899–1.666] NS | 38.40% | NS | NS | NS |
| Caucasians | 1.035 [0.812–1.319] NS | 47.60% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans | 1.487 [0.948–2.330] NS | 54.00% | NS | NS | – | ||
|
| 1.217 [0.988–1.499] NS | 58.40% | 0.014 | – | – | ||
| Dominant (CT + TT/CC) | Asians |
| 60.20% | 0.057 | NS | NS | |
| Caucasians | 1.110 [0.847–1.456] NS | 54.70% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans | 1.694 [0.898–3.195] NS | 0.00% | NS | NS | – | ||
|
|
| 48.30% | NS | – | – | ||
| Recessive (TT/CC + CT) | Asians | 1.259 [0.929–1.708] NS | 20.80% | NS | NS | NS | |
| Caucasians | 0.932 [0.765–1.135] NS | 0.00% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans |
| 43.80% | NS | NS | – | ||
|
| 1.095 [0.940–1.276] NS | 47.70% | NS | – | – | ||
|
| Additive (A/G) | Asians | 0.969 [0.408–2.301] NS | 89.00% | 0 | NS | NS |
| Caucasians | 0.971 [0.845–1.115] NS | 0.00% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans | 1.043 [0.400–2.722] NS | 90.30% | 0.001 | NS | – | ||
|
| 1.005 [0.746–1.353] NS | 79.80% | 0 | – | – | ||
| Dominant (AA + AG/GG) | Asians | 1.420 [0.347–5.814] NS | 89.10% | 0 | NS | NS | |
| Caucasians | 1.054 [0.826–1.346] NS | 0.00% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans | 1.424 [0.249–8.139] NS | 89.80% | 0.002 | NS | – | ||
|
| 1.237 [0.753–2.031] NS | 80.00% | 0 | – | – | ||
| Recessive (AA/AG + GG) | Asians | 1.109 [0.324–3.794] NS | 76.00% | 0.016 | NS | NS | |
| Caucasians | 0.846 [0.582–1.230] NS | 33.90% | NS | NS | – | ||
| African Americans | 0.867 [0.273–2.750] NS | 81.60% | 0.02 | NS | – | ||
|
| 0.906 [0.623–1.316] NS | 60.90% | 0.018 | – | – | ||
NS, no statistically significant differences (P ≥ 0.05)
Figure 1.Forest plot of odds ratios for prostate cancer (additive model) a: Taq I (rs731236); b: Bsm I (rs1544410).
Figure 2.Forest plot of odds ratios for prostate cancer (dominant model) a: Taq I (rs731236); b: Bsm I (rs1544410).
Figure 3.Forest plot of odds ratios for prostate cancer (recessive model) a: Taq I (rs731236); b: Bsm I (rs1544410).