| Literature DB >> 28977960 |
Kun Liu1, Xuzhong Liu1, Shuo Gu1, Qing Sun1, Yunyan Wang1, Junsong Meng1, Zongyuan Xu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies have investigated the role of transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) in chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD) following kidney transplantation. TGFB1 gene polymorphisms (SNP rs1800470 and rs1800471) may be associated with the risk of CAD. In this meta-analysis, the relationship between these two variations and the risk of CAD was explored.Entities:
Keywords: TGFB1; chronic allograft dysfunction; meta-analysis; polymorphism
Year: 2017 PMID: 28977960 PMCID: PMC5617520 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.19516
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Figure 1Flow chart of literature search and study selection
Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis
| Author (year) | Ethnicity | Case number | Age (years; mean ± SD) | Male/female | Genotyping method | Genetic equilibrium | Diagnosis criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caucasian | 105 | Con:8.6 ± 4.4; Case:9.2 ± 4.3 | 57/48 | RT-PCR | NA | CAD | |
| Asian | 163 | NA | NA | PCR-SSCP | NA | CAN | |
| Latino | 62 | 40 ± 10 | 37/26 | PCR-SSP | Yes | CAD | |
| Asian | 122 | 39.7 | 95/27 | PCR | NA | CAD | |
| Asian | 144 | 40.6 | 109/35 | PCR-SSP | NA | CAN | |
| Asian | 100 | Con: 42.8 ± 7.9;Case:45.3 ± 6.7 | 51/49 | PCR | NA | CAN | |
| Caucasian | 66 | NA | 39/27 | PCR-SSP | NA | CAN | |
| Caucasian | 276 | Con:50.5 ± 15.2;Case:51.5 ± 18 | 108/168 | the SNPlex genotyping system | Yes | CAD |
Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; NA, not available; CAD, chronic allograft dysfunction; CAN, chronic allograft nephropathy; PCR-SSCP, PCR-single strand conformation polymorphism; PCR-SSP, PCR-sequence-specific primers.
Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for each included study
| Studies | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total quality score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6 | |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | |
Figure 2Meta-analysis of the association between the TGFB1 haplotypes and CAD risk (HIGH vs. INTERMEDIATE + LOW)
Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s linear regression test for all included studies
| genotypes | Egger’s test | Begg’s test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Codon 10 | ||||
| TT vs. TC+CC | −1.15 | 0.33 | 0.49 | 0.62 |
| CC vs. TC+TT | −0.23 | 0.85 | 0.52 | 0.60 |
| TT vs. TC | −1.89 | 0.16 | 0.49 | 0.62 |
| TT vs. CC | −0.08 | 0.95 | −0.52 | 0.60 |
| T vs. C | 0.26 | 0.81 | −0.49 | 0.62 |
| Codon 25 | ||||
| GG vs. GC+CC | 0.93 | 0.52 | 0.52 | 0.60 |
| GG vs. GC | 0.40 | 0.76 | 0.52 | 0.60 |
| G vs. C | 1.00 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 0.60 |
| Haplotype | ||||
| HIGH vs. INTERMEDIATE+LOW | 2.13 | 0.28 | −0.52 | 0.60 |