4.3 Article

Association of transforming growth factor-β1 T869C gene polymorphism with diabetic nephropathy risk

Journal

NEPHROLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 107-115

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nep.12176

Keywords

diabetic nephropathy; gene polymorphism; meta-analysis; T869C; transforming growth factor-1

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimA possible association between the transforming growth factor-1 (TGF-1) T869C gene polymorphism and the risk of developing diabetic nephropathy (DN) remains unclear. This investigation was performed to assess if an association between the TGF-1 T869C gene polymorphism and DN risk exists by using meta-analysis to combine comparable studies, thereby increasing sample size and statistical significance, and to identify patterns in various studies. MethodsThe association reports were identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CBM-disc (China Biological Medicine Database) on 1 May 2013, and eligible studies were recruited and synthesized. ResultsFifty reports were recruited into this meta-analysis for the association of the TGF-1 T869C gene polymorphism with DN risk. The TT genotype in the overall population was shown to be associated with DN risk (odds ratio (OR)=0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-0.98, P=0.04). In the sub-group analysis, CC genotype was associated with DN risk in Asians, Caucasians, and Africans. However, the sample size for Caucasians and Africans was relatively small. Furthermore, T allele was distinctly associated with the risk of developing DN in the Asian population (OR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.62-0.92, P=0.005). ConclusionsThe TT genotype of TGF-1 T869C in the overall population was associated with DN risk, whereas the CC genotype and T allele were distinctly associated with DN risk in the Asian population. Nonetheless, additional studies are required to firmly establish a correlation between the aforementioned polymorphism and DN risk.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available