4.5 Article

Association Between Interleukin-10 Polymorphisms and Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF ALZHEIMERS DISEASE
卷 29, 期 4, 页码 751-759

出版社

IOS PRESS
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-2012-111838

关键词

Alzheimer's disease; IL-10; meta-analysis; polymorphisms

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been hypothesized that polymorphisms of interleukin (IL)-10 genes affect the risk of developing late onset Alzheimer's disease (AD). However, results of different studies are often inconsistent. Our aim was to investigate by meta-analysis the association of the common polymorphisms comprehensively defining the genetic variability of the IL-10 gene with AD risk. Fifteen studies investigating the association between IL-10 polymorphisms (-1082, -819, -592) and AD were found and analyzed. The model-free approach was applied to meta-analyze these case-control genetic association studies. Available data suggested an association between -1082 polymorphism and AD risk with a marginal statistical significance (GG versus AG/AA: pooled odds ratio [OR]: 0.82, 95% confidence interval CI: 0.65-1.02) and evidence of a moderate degree of between-study heterogeneity (chi(2) = 27.13, d.f. = 13, p = 0.01, I-2 = 52%). For the -819 and -592 polymorphisms, we did not find an association with AD, but significant between-study heterogeneity made genotype data pooling unacceptable. Analysis by IL-10 haplotype showed that the -1082G/-819C/-592C haplotype is associated with a lower risk of AD, although with a marginal statistical significance, probably due to the low number of studies included (GCC versus other genotypes: OR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.32-1.15; I-2: 85%). Current findings suggest a possible association between -1082 A>G polymorphism and the risk of developing AD; this effect is more evident in the oldest patients. The high degree of between-study heterogeneity, due to several underpowered studies and to other methodological problems of individual studies underlies the need for further methodologically adequate studies.

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