| Literature DB >> 31827649 |
Enmin Ding1, Jiadi Guo2, Xin Ge3, Rongjian Sheng3, Jian Chen3, Hengdong Zhang1, Baoli Zhu2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is one of the most common occupational health risks in both developed and industrialized countries. It occurs as a result of interactions between genetic and environmental factors. Nevertheless, inherited genetic factors contributing to NIHL are not well understood. Therefore, we aim to investigate whether genetic mutations in three important base excision repair genes (OGG1, APEX1, and XRCC1) may influence susceptibility to NIHL.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31827649 PMCID: PMC6885169 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9327106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.434
Demographic characteristics of study subjects.
| Variables | Sensitive group ( | Resistant group ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 40.72 ± 6.60 | 41.87 ± 4.56 | 0.121a | ||
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 112 | 95.7 | 109 | 93.2 | 0.392b |
| Female | 5 | 4.3 | 8 | 6.8 | |
| Tobacco use | |||||
| Now | 59 | 50.4 | 61 | 52.1 | 0.249b |
| Ever | 3 | 2.6 | 8 | 6.8 | |
| Never | 55 | 47.0 | 48 | 41.0 | |
| Alcohol consumption | |||||
| Now | 40 | 34.2 | 51 | 43.6 | 0.374c |
| Ever | 3 | 2.6 | 3 | 2.6 | |
| Never | 74 | 63.2 | 2.6 | 53.8 | |
| Work time with noise (years) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 19.18 ± 7.67 | 18.79 ± 6.94 | 0.288a | ||
| Expose level with noise (dB) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 87.01 ± 8.11 | 87.01 ± 6.37 | 1.000a | ||
| Hearing threshold level (dB) | |||||
| Mean ± SD | 52.35 ± 6.63 | 8.98 ± 2.27 |
| ||
| <26 | 0 | 0 | 117 | 100.0 | |
| ≥26 | 117 | 100 | 0 | 0.0 | |
aStudents' t-test; bTwo-sided χ2 test; cFisher's exact test.
General information of selected SNPs and the Hardy-Weinberg test.
| Gene | SNP | Alleles | Chromosome | Functional consequence | MAF |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Controla | Database | ||||||
| hOGG1 | rs2072668 | C/G | 3 : 9756456 | Intron variant | 0.376 | 0.378 | 0.926 |
| XRCC1 | rs1799782 | C/T | 19 : 43553422 | Missense | 0.296 | 0.267 | 0.149 |
| APEX1 | rs1130409 | G/T | 14 : 20456995 | Missense | 0.438 | 0.452 | 0.529 |
aData from NCBI dbSNP; bP value of the Hardy-Weinberg test.
Distribution of three polymorphisms and the association with NIHL.
| Genetic models | Genotypes | Sensitive group | Resistant group | Adjusted | Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % | ||||
| rs2072668 | |||||||
| Codominant | GG | 34 | 29.1 | 39 | 33.3 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| CC | 15 | 14.5 | 17 | 14.5 | 0.874 | 1.07 (0.45-2.55) | |
| CG | 68 | 52.1 | 61 | 52.1 | 0.359 | 1.32 (0.73-2.38) | |
| Dominant | GG | 34 | 29.1 | 39 | 33.3 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| CC+CG | 83 | 70.9 | 78 | 66.7 | 0.414 | 1.27 (0.72-2.25) | |
| Recessive | CG+GG | 102 | 87.2 | 100 | 85.5 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| CC | 15 | 12.8 | 17 | 14.5 | 0.766 | 0.89 (0.41-1.92) | |
| Alleles | G | 136 | 58.1 | 139 | 59.4 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| C | 98 | 41.9 | 95 | 40.6 | 0.695 | 1.08 (0.74-1.57) | |
|
| |||||||
| rs1799782 | |||||||
| Codominant | CC | 51 | 43.6 | 59 | 50.4 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| CT | 52 | 44.4 | 56 | 47.9 | 0.940 | 1.02 (0.59-1.76) | |
| TT | 14 | 12.0 | 2 | 1.7 |
| 8.92 (1.91-41.63) | |
| Dominant | CC | 51 | 43.6 | 59 | 50.4 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| CT+TT | 66 | 56.4 | 58 | 49.6 | 0.344 | 1.29 (0.76-2.17) | |
| Recessive | CC+CT | 103 | 88.0 | 115 | 98.3 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| TT | 14 | 12.0 | 2 | 1.7 |
| 8.83 (1.93-40.36) | |
| Alleles | C | 154 | 65.8 | 174 | 74.4 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| T | 80 | 34.2 | 60 | 25.6 |
| 1.51 (1.01-2.26) | |
|
| |||||||
| rs1130409 | |||||||
| Codominant | TT | 28 | 23.9 | 49 | 41.9 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| GG | 26 | 22.2 | 21 | 17.9 |
| 2.21 (1.04-4.70) | |
| GT | 63 | 53.8 | 47 | 40.2 |
| 2.48 (1.34-4.61) | |
| Dominant | TT | 28 | 23.9 | 49 | 41.9 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| GG+GT | 89 | 76.1 | 68 | 58.1 |
| 2.39 (1.34-4.27) | |
| Recessive | GG | 26 | 22.2 | 21 | 17.9 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| GT+TT | 91 | 77.8 | 96 | 82.1 | 0.428 | 1.30 (0.68-2.51) | |
| Alleles | T | 119 | 50.9 | 145 | 62.0 | 1.00 (ref.) | |
| G | 115 | 49.1 | 89 | 38.0 |
| 1.59 (1.10-2.31) | |
aAdjusted for age, sex, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption in the logistic regression model.
Stratified analysis of SNPs in the allelic model.
| SNPs | Group | Alleles | Cumulative noise exposure (dB) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≤95 | >95 | |||
| rs2072668 | Sensitive group | C | 17 | 81 |
| G | 29 | 107 | ||
| Resistant group | C | 46 | 49 | |
| G | 64 | 75 | ||
| Adjusted | 0.613 | 0.390 | ||
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | 0.83 (0.39-1.73) | 1.23 (0.76-1.99) | ||
|
| ||||
| rs1799782 | Sensitive group | C | 31 | 123 |
| T | 15 | 65 | ||
| Resistant group | C | 79 | 95 | |
| T | 31 | 29 | ||
|
| 0.611 |
| ||
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | 1.22 (0.57-2.63) | 1.76 (1.05-2.98) | ||
|
| ||||
| rs1130409 | Sensitive group | G | 20 | 95 |
| T | 26 | 93 | ||
| Resistant group | G | 38 | 51 | |
| T | 72 | 73 | ||
|
| 0.309 | 0.126 | ||
| Adjusted OR (95% CI)a | 1.46 (0.71-3.03) | 1.44 (0.90-2.30) | ||
dB: decibel; aAdjusted for age, sex, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption in the logistic regression model.
Analysis of the interaction by GMDR.
| Best model | Training balanced accuracy | Testing balanced accuracy | Cross-validation consistency |
| OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs1130409 | 0.5897 | 0.5897 | 10/10 | 0.0037 | 2.29 (1.31-4.02) |
| rs1130409∗drink | 0.6211 | 0.5641 | 7/10 | 0.0002 | 2.77 (1.61-4.77) |
| rs1799782∗rs1130409∗smoke | 0.6629 | 0.5513 | 5/10 | <0.0001 | 3.71 (2.16-6.38) |
Figure 1The best fit model gained by the analysis of GMDR. The implications of bars and background color in each multifactor cell are as follows. The left bars represent the sum of scores in the case and the right represents the control. High-risk cells are expressed by black shadow if the ratio of the number of cases to the number of controls exceeds the preset value T, as low-risk cells by light shadow if not more than the threshold and empty cells by no shadow which means no cases and controls. The multifactor cells labeled as “high risk” or “low risk” are then used to assess the classification and prediction accuracy, thus identifying the best model in the subsequent steps (drink 1: now, 2: ever, 3: never; smoke 1: now, 2: ever, 3: never).