| Literature DB >> 32934782 |
Victor Hugo de Souza1, Josiane Bazzo de Alencar1, Bruna Tiaki Tiyo1, Hugo Vicentin Alves1, Evelyn Castillo Lima Vendramini1, Ana Maria Sell1,2, Jeane Eliete Laguila Visentainer1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Interleukin-16 (IL-16) is a chemotactic cytokine that is found to increase in Cancer and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in IL16 were associated with diseases. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate possible associations between IL16 rs4778889, rs11556218, rs4072111, and rs1131445 SNPs and the risk for cancer or CVD.Entities:
Keywords: alleles; cytokines; inflammation; polymorphism; single nucleotide
Year: 2020 PMID: 32934782 PMCID: PMC7486693 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.27715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Meta-analysis results for groups of diseases
| Comparisona |
| Association test | Model | Heterogeneity test |
| Citation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI 95% |
|
|
| |||||
| Cancer - rs11556218 T>G (total case/control number = 5022/5779) | |||||||||
| T vs G | 14 | 1.38 | (1.23–1.56) | R | 0.04 | <0.01 | 71 | 0.98 | [ |
| G/G+T/T vs T/G | 14 | 1.36 | (1.19–1.55) | R | 0.04 | <0.01 | 62 | 0.92 | |
| T/T vs T/G+G/G | 14 | 1.49 | (1.28–1.72) | R | 0.05 | <0.01 | 70 | 0.88 | |
| T/T+T/G vs G/G | 14 | 1.56 | (1.33–1.84) | F | 0.04 | 0.15 | 29 | 0.65 | |
| T/T vs T/G | 14 | 1.43 | (1.24–1.66) | R | 0.05 | <0.01 | 65 | 0.90 | |
| T/T vs G/G | 14 | 1.77 | (1.50–2.10) | F | 0.07 | 0.06 | 41 | 0.93 | |
| T/G vs G/G | 14 | 1.29 | (1.08 – 1.53) | F | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0 | 0.20 | |
|
| |||||||||
| T vs C | 3 | 1.18 | (1.03–1.35) | F | 0.01 | 0.15 | 47 | 0.35 | [ |
| T/T + T/C vs C/C | 3 | 1.41 | (1.02–1.95) | F | 0.00 | 0.72 | 0 | 0.65 | |
| T/T vs C/C | 3 | 1.48 | (1.06–2.06) | F | 0.00 | 0.61 | 0 | 0.87 | |
|
| |||||||||
| T vs G | 5 | 1.51 | (1.07–2.14) | R | 0.17 | <0.01 | 90 | 0.07 | [ |
| G/G+T/T vs T/G | 5 | 1.87 | (1.08–3.23) | R | 0.43 | <0.01 | 92 | 0.23 | |
| T/T vs T/G+G/G | 5 | 2.00 | (1.11–3.63) | R | 0.52 | <0.01 | 94 | 0.24 | |
| T/T vs T/G | 5 | 2.00 | (1.08–3.71) | R | 0.55 | <0.01 | 94 | 0.24 | |
n: Number of selected studies; R: Random model; F: Fixed Model; OR: Pooled Odds Ratio. afor all comparisons P-value < 0.05. bPBE: P-value for the linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry (Egger’s test). Only significant results of OR are presented.
Meta-analysis results for studies with control groups in the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium
| Comparisona |
| Association test | Model | Heterogeneity test |
| Citation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI 95% |
|
|
| |||||
|
| |||||||||
| T vs G | 13 | 1.41 | (1.26–1.59) | R | 0.03 | <0.01 | 68 | 0.99 | [ |
| G/G+T/T vs T/G | 13 | 1.41 | (1.23–1.61) | R | 0.04 | <0.01 | 61 | 0.68 | |
| T/T vs T/G+G/G | 13 | 1.54 | (1.33–1.78) | R | 0.05 | <0.01 | 68 | 0.74 | |
| T/T+T/G vs G/G | 13 | 1.66 | (1.39–1.98) | F | 0.04 | 0.21 | 23 | 0.41 | |
| T/T vs T/G | 13 | 1.48 | (1.28–1.71) | R | 0.05 | <0.01 | 64 | 0.69 | |
| T/T vs G/G | 13 | 1.92 | (1.60–2.30) | F | 0.05 | 0.15 | 29 | 0.66 | |
| T/G vs G/G | 13 | 1.31 | (1.09–1.58) | F | 0.00 | 0.62 | 0 | 0.13 | |
|
| |||||||||
| T vs G | 10 | 1.53 | (1.34–1.73) | R | 0.02 | <0.01 | 62 | 0.63 | [ |
| G/G+T/T vs T/G | 10 | 1.53 | (1.32–1.77) | R | 0.03 | 0.02 | 54 | 0.45 | |
| T/T vs T/G+G/G | 10 | 1.70 | (1.46–1.97) | R | 0.03 | 0.01 | 58 | 0.41 | |
| T/T+T/G vs G/G | 10 | 1.76 | (1.44–2.16) | F | 0.07 | 0.10 | 39 | 0.17 | |
| T/T vs T/G | 10 | 1.63 | (1.40–1.89) | R | 0.03 | 0.02 | 54 | 0.41 | |
| T/T vs G/G | 10 | 2.10 | (1.71–2.58) | F | 0.06 | 0.12 | 35 | 0.06 | |
| T/G vs G/G | 10 | 1.33 | (1.08–1.65) | F | 0.02 | 0.29 | 16 | 0.39 | |
|
| |||||||||
| T vs G | 4 | 1.16 | (1.02–1.32) | F | 0.01 | 0.20 | 35 | 0.77 | [ |
|
| |||||||||
| T vs G | 4 | 1.70 | (1.25–2.32) | R | 0.10 | <0.01 | 85 | 0.29 | [ |
| G/G+T/T vs T/G | 4 | 2.03 | (1.09–3.78) | R | 0.47 | <0.01 | 93 | 0.33 | |
| T/T vs T/G+G/G | 4 | 2.33 | (1.24–4.41) | R | 0.49 | <0.01 | 94 | 0.49 | |
| T/T+T/G vs G/G | 4 | 1.77 | (1.24–2.53) | F | 0.18 | 0.10 | 49 | 0.09 | |
| T/T vs T/G | 4 | 2.25 | (1.12–4.50) | R | 0.59 | <0.01 | 94 | 0.58 | |
| T/T vs G/G | 4 | 2.50 | (1.19–5.25) | R | 0.50 | <0.01 | 72 | 0.39 | |
n: Number of selected studies; R: Random model; F: Fixed Model; OR: Pooled Odds Ratio. afor all comparisons P-value < 0.05. bPBE: P-value for the linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry (Egger’s test). Only significant results of OR are presented.
Newcastle–ottawa quality assessment scale for selected studies
| Study | Selection | Comparabilitya | Exposure | Total score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shih | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Wu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| He | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Li | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Yang | * | * | * | * | * | 5 | |||
| MaiMaiTiMin | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Tang | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Yang | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
| Yao | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
| Kashfi | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
| Wang and Zhu [ | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Luo | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Qin | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Hai-Feng | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Huang | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Liu | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
| Tong | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Zhang and Wang [ | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Azimzadeh | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Azimzadeh | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Chen | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Li | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 7 | ||
| Wu | * | * | ** | * | * | 6 | |||
| Zhu | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
| Gao | * | * | * | * | * | * | 6 | ||
| Gao | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | 8 | |
Each category can be awarded with one point (*). aUp to two points can be given to this category (**) when additional factors are controlled.
Figure 1Schematic representation of two SNPs changes in PDZ domains of pro-IL-16 and npro-IL-16.
The rs11556218 polymorphism alters the PDZ2 domain at positions 446 and 1147 of pro-IL-16 and n-pro-IL-16, respectively. This polymorphism will cause a substitution of an asparagine to a lysine at the protein, affecting protein recognition by its receptor. The rs4072111 polymorphism is present in the nPDZ2 domain of npro-IL-16 and will cause a substitution of a proline to serine in the protein precursor. Adapted from Bannert et al. [17].
Figure 2Flowchart of the studies selection.