| Literature DB >> 28938665 |
Jian Chen1, Dong-Fei Wang1, Guo-Dong Fu2, Jie Ding1, Lei-Yang Chen2, Jia-Lan Lv1, Juan Fang1, Xiang Yin1, Xiao-Gang Guo1,2.
Abstract
The association of the CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism with coronary artery disease has been explored, but the results remain controversial. Thus, a meta-analysis was conducted to provide a comprehensive estimate of this association. We selected ten articles encompassing 12 independent case-control studies with 7063 cases and 10,453 controls for this meta-analysis. Overall, we found significant associations between the CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism and coronary artery disease risk in three genetic models (allele model: odds ratio (OR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-1.34; homozygote model: OR = 2.25, 95% CI = 1.27-4.01; recessive model: OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.22-3.86). In these three genetic models, a significant association was observed in Caucasians but not in Asians when the data were stratified by ethnicity. However, no significant associations were found between the CYP2J2 polymorphism G-50T and coronary artery disease risk in heterozygote model and dominant model. In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggested that the CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism was associated with coronary artery disease risk in the allele, homozygote and recessive models in Caucasians.Entities:
Keywords: CAD; CYP2J2; G-50T polymorphism; meta-analysis
Year: 2017 PMID: 28938665 PMCID: PMC5601761 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow diagram of studies through the meta-analysis
Characteristics of the included studies
| Included study | Year | Ethnicity | Genotyping method | Source of controls | No. of case | No. of control | Quality score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arun Kumar et al. | 2015 | Asians | Real-time PCR | HB | 287 | 321 | 9 |
| Tzveova et al. | 2015 | Caucasians | Taqman | PB | 254 | 470 | 10 |
| Zhu et al. | 2013 | Asians | Taqman | PB | 573 | 455 | 11 |
| Zhu et al. | 2013 | Asians | Taqman | PB | 286 | 138 | 11 |
| Xu et al. | 2011 | Asians | Taqman | HB | 1344 | 1267 | 9 |
| Fava et al. | 2010 | Caucasians | Taqman | PB | 132 | 5608 | 9 |
| Lee et al. | 2007 | Caucasians | MALDI TOF MS | PB | 731 | 566 | 10 |
| lee et al. | 2007 | African-American | MALDI TOF MS | PB | 211 | 268 | 10 |
| Hoffmann et al. | 2007 | Caucasians | PCR | PB | 2547 | 696 | 11 |
| Liu et al. | 2007 | Asians | PCR | HB | 200 | 200 | 9 |
| Lung et al. | 2006 | Asians | PCR | HB | 209 | 209 | 9 |
| Spiecker et al. | 2004 | Caucasians | PCR | HB | 289 | 255 | 10 |
PB: Population-based; HB: Hospital-based; MALDI TOF MS: matrix-assisted laserdesorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
The genotypes distribution and allele frequencies of eligible studies
| Included study | Ethnicity | group | genotype | Allele frequencies (%) | HWE( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GG | GT | TT | G | T | ||||
| Arun Kumar et al. | Indian | case | 251 | 34 | 2 | 93.4 | 6.6 | 0.99 |
| control | 286 | 34 | 1 | 94.4 | 5.6 | |||
| Tzveova et al. | Bulgarian | case | 217 | 32 | 5 | 91.7 | 8.3 | 0.68 |
| control | 428 | 50 | 2 | 94.3 | 5.7 | |||
| Zhu et al. | Han | case | 521 | 51 | 1 | 95.4 | 4.6 | 0.28 |
| control | 411 | 44 | 0 | 95.2 | 4.8 | |||
| Zhu et al. | Uygur | case | 253 | 32 | 1 | 94.1 | 5.9 | 0.56 |
| control | 125 | 13 | 0 | 95.3 | 4.7 | |||
| Xu et al. | China | case | 1220 | 118 | 6 | 95.2 | 4.8 | 0.56 |
| control | 1147 | 116 | 4 | 95.1 | 4.9 | |||
| Fava et al. | Swedes | case | 112 | 19 | 1 | 92.0 | 8.0 | 0.33 |
| control | 4760 | 819 | 29 | 92.2 | 7.8 | |||
| Lee et al. | Caucasian | case | 648 | 83 | 93.6 | 6.4 | > 0.05 | |
| control | 501 | 65 | ||||||
| lee et al. | African-American | case | 167 | 44 | 84.5 | 15.5 | > 0.05 | |
| control | 189 | 79 | ||||||
| Hoffmann et al. | Germany | case | 2225 | 313 | 9 | 93.5 | 6.5 | 0.83 |
| control | 618 | 76 | 2 | 94.3 | 5.7 | |||
| Liu et al. | China | case | 136 | 56 | 8 | 82.0 | 18.0 | 0.45 |
| control | 156 | 40 | 4 | 88.0 | 12.0 | |||
| Lung et al. | China | case | 187 | 22 | 0 | 94.7 | 5.3 | 0.52 |
| control | 191 | 18 | 0 | 95.7 | 4.3 | |||
| Spiecker et al. | Germany | case | 239 | 43 | 7 | 90.1 | 9.9 | 0.78 |
| control | 228 | 26 | 1 | 94.5 | 5.5 | |||
HWE(P), the P-values of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test of control group.
The main results of this meta-analysis
| Genotype contrast | population | Sample size | Type of model | Number of studies | Test of association | Heterogeneity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| case | control | OR | 95% CI | |||||||
| T vs. G | Over all | 6121 | 9619 | Fixed | 10 | 1.19* | 1.05–1.34* | < 0.01 | 16.7% | 0.290 |
| TT vs. GG | Over all | 5912 | 9410 | Fixed | 9 | 2.25* | 1.27–4.01* | < 0.01 | 0.0% | 0.923 |
| GT vs. GG | Over all | 6121 | 9619 | Fixed | 10 | 1.13 | 0.99–1.28 | 0.071 | 0.0% | 0.661 |
| TT vs. GT + GG | Over all | 5912 | 9410 | Fixed | 9 | 2.17* | 1.22–3.86* | < 0.01 | 0.0% | 0.933 |
| TT + GT vs. GG | Over all | 7063 | 10453 | Fixed | 12 | 1.09 | 0.97–1.22 | 0.137 | 34.1% | 0.117 |
OR: odds ratio; *OR with statistical significance.
Figure 2Meta-analysis for the association of CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism and CAD risk in total population
(A) Allele genetic model (T vs.G); (B) Homozygote genetic model (TT vs. GG); (C) Recessive genetic model (TT vs. GT + GG). For each study, the estimation of OR and its 95% CI are plotted with a box and a horizontal line. ◊, pooled ORs and its 95% CIs.
Figure 3Forest plots for stratification study of the association between CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism and CAD risk under the three genetic models
(A) T vs. G; (B) TT vs. GG; (C) TT vs. GG/GT. For each study, the estimation of OR and its 95% CI are plotted with a box and a horizontal line. ◊, pooled ORs and its 95% CIs.
Figure 4Begg's funnel plot of publication bias in the meta-analysis of the association of CYP2J2 G-50T polymorphism and CAD risk under three genetic models
(A) T vs. G; (B) TT vs. GG; (C) TT vs. GG/GT. Each point represents a separate study for the indicated association.
Scale for quality assessment
| Criteria | Score |
|---|---|
| selected from case population with clearly defined sampling frame | 2 |
| selected from case population without clearly defined sampling frame or with extensive inclusion/exclusion criteria | 1 |
| No method of selection described | 0 |
| Population-based | 3 |
| Blood donors or volunteers | 2 |
| Hospital-based | 1 |
| Not described | 0 |
| Clearly described objective criteria for diagnosis of CAD, histological confirmation | 2 |
| Diagnosis of CAD by patient self-report or by patient history | 1 |
| Not described | 0 |
| Genotyping done under blinded condition | 1 |
| Not mentioned | 0 |
| Equilibrium in controls | 2 |
| Disequilibrium in controls | 1 |
| No checked | 0 |
| Assess association between genotypes and CAD with appropriated statistics and adjustment for confounders | 2 |
| Assess association between genotypes and CAD with appropriated statistics without adjustment for confounders | 1 |
| Inappropriate statistics used | 0 |