4.5 Article

The COPD genetic association compendium: a comprehensive online database of COPD genetic associations

期刊

HUMAN MOLECULAR GENETICS
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 526-534

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddp519

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [T32 HS00060, F32 HL094035, T32HL007427, K12HL089990, UL1 RR025752, R01 HL075478, R01 HL084323]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. COPD is thought to arise from the interaction of environmental exposures and genetic susceptibility, and major research efforts are underway to identify genetic determinants of COPD susceptibility. With the exception of SERPINA1, genetic associations with COPD identified by candidate gene studies have been inconsistently replicated, and this literature is difficult to interpret. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all population-based, case-control candidate gene COPD studies indexed in PubMed before 16 July 2008. We stored our findings in an online database, which serves as an up-to-date compendium of COPD genetic associations and cumulative meta-analysis estimates. On the basis of our systematic review, the vast majority of COPD candidate gene era studies are underpowered to detect genetic effect odds ratios of 1.2-1.5. We identified 27 genetic variants with adequate data for quantitative meta-analysis. Of these variants, four were significantly associated with COPD susceptibility in random effects meta-analysis, the GSTM1 null variant (OR 1.45, CI 1.09-1.92), rs1800470 in TGFB1 (0.73, CI 0.64-0.83), rs1800629 in TNF (OR 1.19, CI 1.01-1.40) and rs1799896 in SOD3 (OR 1.97, CI 1.24-3.13). In summary, most COPD candidate gene era studies are underpowered to detect moderate-sized genetic effects. Quantitative meta-analysis identified four variants in GSTM1, TGFB1, TNF and SOD3 that show statistically significant evidence of association with COPD susceptibility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据