| Literature DB >> 31572449 |
Yongjian Yue1, Qing Sun2, Lu Xiao1,3, Shengguo Liu1, Qijun Huang1, Minlian Wang1, Mei Huo4, Mo Yang4, Yingyun Fu1.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Genetic variants in the gene SERPINC1 have been shown to be associated with antithrombin deficiency, which subsequently contributes to the susceptibility to venous thrombosis. However, several other studies have shown conflicting results regarding the association of SERPINC1 gene polymorphisms (rs2227589) with the risk of thrombosis. Hence, in the present study, we conducted a case-control study to further evaluate the association between the variant rs2227589 with antithrombin deficiency in pulmonary embolism (PTE). A pooled systematic analysis was also conducted to evaluate the risk of rs2227589 in venous thromboembolism (VTE) among multiple populations.Entities:
Keywords: SERPINC1; antithrombin anticoagulant activity; pooled systematic analysis; pulmonary embolism; rs2227589
Year: 2019 PMID: 31572449 PMCID: PMC6753222 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00844
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Demographics of the participants and antithrombin anticoagulant activity in patients with pulmonary embolism.
| Characteristic/Genotype | Number (%) or | Antithrombin activity (Mean ± SEM) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 51/50 | ||
| Age (years) | 59 ± 1.7 | ||
| Total subjects | 101 | 90 ± 2.0% | 83–128% (normal range) |
| Deficiency case | 27 | 62.9 ± 2.8% | P < 0.001 |
| Normal case | 84 | 99.9 ± 1.4% | |
| rs2227589 genotype | |||
| CC | 40 (39.6%) | 91.6 ± 2.8% | P > 0.05 |
| CT | 45 (44.6%) | 88.5 ± 3.5% | |
| TT | 16 (15.8%) | 90.3 ± 4.6% |
Figure 1Genotype distribution of rs2227589 in pulmonary embolism and normal subjects.
Genotype distribution of SERPINC1 polymorphism (rs2227589) among different studies.
| Author | Years | Ethnicity | Source | Case | Control | Methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | CT | TT | CC | CT | TT | |||||
| Bezemer | 2008 | Netherlands | Mega2 | 1,001 | 278 | 15 | 2325 | 483 | 28 | PCR |
| Tregouet | 2009 | Northern European | GWAS | 317 | 89 | 5 | 983 | 235 | 10 | Beadchip |
| Tregouet | 2009 | Northern European | MARTHA | 922 | 228 | 12 | 621 | 149 | 12 | Taqman |
| Tregouet | 2009 | Northern European | FARIVE | 478 | 111 | 5 | 467 | 119 | 1 | Taqman |
| Austin | 2011 | White America | White | 426 | 113 | 5 | 530 | 127 | 7 | Taqman |
| Austin | 2011 | Black America | Black | 469 | 58 | 2 | 499 | 71 | 5 | Taqman |
| El-Galaly, TC | 2013 | Danish | White | 494 | 105 | 8 | 1,434 | 279 | 17 | Taqman |
| Rovite, V | 2014 | Latvia | Latvia | 139 | 38 | 0 | 179 | 53 | 3 | Taqman |
| Kajuna, I | 2018 | Latvia | Latvia | 82 | 17 | 0 | 71 | 27 | 1 | Taqman |
| Yue, YY | 2019 | Asian | Chinese | 40 | 45 | 16 | 84 | 100 | 15 | Sequenom |
OR, 95% CIs, and antithrombin activity levels in three genetic models of rs2227589 among patients with pulmonary embolism.
| Genetic models | Pooled effect | Antithrombin activity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models | Allele | OR (95% CI) | P | Mean ± SEM | P |
| Additive | T vs. C | 1.27 (0.89–1.81) | 0.18 | 88.9 ± 2.9 vs. 89.9 ± 2.3 | 0.79 |
| Dominant | TT + TC vs. CC | 1.11 (0.68–1.81) | 0.67 | 89.0 ± 2.9 vs. 91.6 ± 2.8 | 0.25 |
| Recessive | TT vs. TC + CC | 2.31 (1.09–4.89) | 0.026 | 86.8 ± 3.7 vs. 90.6 ± 2.3 | 0.5 |
The results of pooled OR, 95% CIs, and heterogeneity by meta-analysis.
| Genetic models | Pooled effect | z | Heterogeneity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Models | Allele | OR (95% CI) | Pz | I2 (%) | PH | |
| Additive | T vs. C | 1.09 (1.01–1.18) | 0.029 | 2.18 | 44.3 | 0.06 |
| Subgroups (Caucasian) | 1.10 (1.01–1.20) | 0.023 | 2.27 | 44.9 | 0.08 | |
| Dominant | TT + TC vs. CC | 1.10 (1.01–1.20) | 0.034 | 2.21 | 40.1 | 0.09 |
| Subgroups (Caucasian) | 1.12 (1.02–1.22) | 0.017 | 2.39 | 45.1 | 0.08 | |
| Recessive | TT vs. TC + CC | 1.17 (0.85–1.61) | 0.328 | 0.98 | 16.4 | 0.29 |
| Subgroups (Caucasian) | 1.06 (0.74–1.52) | 0.741 | 0.33 | 0.0 | 0.54 | |
Figure 2Forest plots for the association between rs2227589 and the risk of venous thromboembolism among different populations (A), additive model; (B) dominant model; (C) recessive model).
Figure 3Funnel plot of bias examination in the additive model (A) and dominant model (B).
Figure 4Sensitivity analysis of rs2227589 and the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the additive model (A) and dominant model (B).