| Literature DB >> 32463080 |
Shiqi Yi1,2,3,4, Jiawei Xu1,2,3,4, Hao Shi1,2,3,4, Wenbo Li1,2,3,4, Qian Li1,2,3,4, Ying-Pu Sun1,2,3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a kind of common gynecological endocrine disorder. And the mutations of melatonin receptor (MTNR) genes are related to the occurrence of PCOS. But previous researches have shown opposite results. So, the object of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to investigate the relationship between MTNR 1A/B polymorphisms and PCOS.Entities:
Keywords: melatonin receptor; meta analysis; polycystic ovarian syndrome; single nucleotide polymorphisms
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32463080 PMCID: PMC7317604 DOI: 10.1042/BSR20200824
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biosci Rep ISSN: 0144-8463 Impact factor: 3.840
Figure 1Flow diagram of selection process on genetic studies of MTNR polymorphisms with PCOS
The NOS
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Exposure | Total Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Definition adequate | Representativeness | Selection of controls | Definition of controls | Ascertainment | Same method | Non-response rate | |||
| Xu et al. (2019) | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Yang et al. (2016) | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Song et al. | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 7 | ||
| Li et al. (2011) | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 |
| Li et al. (2010) | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 |
| Wang et al. (2010) | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
Characteristics of the eligible studies in the meta-analysis
| Study | Year | Ethnicity | Patients | MTNR | Study period | Stydy type | NOS | Case/control | Genotyping methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu et al. | 01/2019 | Chinese | PCOS | MTNR1A, MTNR1B | March 2013–May 2015 | Case–control | 8 | 191+168/215 | PCR- sequencing |
| Yang et al. | 03/2016 | Chinese | PCOS | MTNR1B | January 2012–May 2013 | Case–control | 8 | 182/196 | PCR- sequencing |
| Song et al. | 09/2015 | Chinese, Han, Shandong | PCOS | MTNR1A, MTNR1B | July 2007–April 2014 | Family trios | 7 | 263(789) | PCR- sequencing |
| Li et al. | 04/2011 | Chinese, Han, Shandong | PCOS | MTNR1A | September 2006–February 2008 | Case–control | 8 | 481/522 | PCR Tm-shift |
| Li et al. | 10/2010 | Chinese, Han, Shandong | PCOS | MTNR1B | February 2005–January 2007 | Case–control | 8 | 526/547 | PCR Tm-shift |
| Wang et al. | 11/2010 | Chinese | PCOS | MTNR1B | / | Case–control | 8 | 364/687 | TaqMan-PCR |
Genotype and allele frequency of rs10830963 and rs2119882 in PCOS patients and controls
| rs10830963 | Group | Genotype ( | χ2 | Allele ( | χ2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CC | CG | GG | C | G | ||||||
| Xu et al. (2019) | PCOS | 125 | 169 | 65 | 30.002 | 0.000 | 419 | 299 | 29.351 | 0.000 |
| Control | 114 | 91 | 10 | 319 | 111 | |||||
| Yang et al. (2016) | PCOS | 50 | 89 | 43 | 6.426 | 0.040 | 189 | 175 | 5.934 | 0.015 |
| Control | 70 | 98 | 28 | 238 | 154 | |||||
| Li et al. (2010) | PCOS | 143 | 258 | 125 | 15.352 | 0.000 | 544 | 508 | 13.207 | 0.000 |
| Control | 185 | 281 | 81 | 651 | 443 | |||||
| Wang et al. (2010) | PCOS | 126 | 185 | 53 | 1.201 | 0.549 | 437 | 291 | 0.746 | 0.388 |
| Control | 229 | 340 | 118 | 798 | 576 | |||||
Six genetic models of MTNR genes
| Allele | Homozygote | Heterozygote | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |||||||
| rs10830963 | 4 | 1.38 | [1.00, 1.89] | 0.05 | 88% | 2.05 | [0.99, 4.21] | 0.05 | 89% | 1.21 | [1.03, 1.42] | 0.02 | 44% |
| rs2129882 | 2 | 1.44 | [1.25, 1.67] | 0.00 | 54% | 2.07 | [1.55, 2.76] | 0.00 | 34% | 1.32 | [1.05, 1.65] | 0.02 | 56% |
Figure 2Forest plots of PCOS risk and the polymorphism of rs10830963 C>G in MTNR1B
(A) G vs. C in allele. (B) GG vs. CC in homozygote. (C) GC vs. CC in heterozygote. (D) GG+GC vs. CC in dominant. (E) GG vs. GC+CC in recessive. (F) GG+CC vs. GC in superdominant.
Figure 3Forest plots of PCOS risk and the polymorphism of rs2119882 T>C in MTNR1A
(A) C vs. T in allele. (B) CC vs. TT in homozygote. (C) CT vs. TT in heterozygote. (D) CC+CT vs. TT in dominant. (E) CC vs. CT+TT in recessive. (F) CC+TT vs. CT in superdominant.
Figure 4Forest plots and funnel plots of rs10830963 when Wang et al.’s study was removed
(A,E) G vs. C in allele. (B,F) GG vs. CC in homozygote. (C,G) GG+GC vs. CC in dominant. (D,H) GG vs. GC+CC in recessive.
Sensitivity analysis of rs10830963 C> G
| Model | OR | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allele | 1.58 | [1.34, 2.02] | 0.000 | 70% |
| Homozygote | 2.78 | [1.51, 5.10] | 0.001 | 73% |
| Dominant | 1.58 | [1.31, 1.90] | 0.000 | 50% |
| Recessive | 2.30 | [1.40, 3.77] | 0.001 | 67% |
Figure 5Egger’s test and Begg’s funnel plot of rs10830963 for heterozygote model
(A) Egger’s regression test. (B) Begg’s funnel plot.