4.6 Article

Association of Adiponectin SNP+45 and SNP+276 with Type 2 Diabetes in Han Chinese Populations: A Meta-Analysis of 26 Case-Control Studies

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 6, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019686

关键词

-

资金

  1. Education Department Fund of Yunnan Province [09C0296]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recently, many studies have reported that the SNP+45(T>G) and SNP+276(G>T) polymorphisms in the adiponectin gene are associated with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in the Chinese Han population. However, the previous studies yielded many conflicting results. Thus, a meta-analysis of the association of the adiponectin gene with T2DM in the Chinese Han population is required. In the current study, we first determined the distribution of the adiponectin SNP+276 polymorphism in T2DM and nondiabetes (NDM) control groups. Our results suggested that the genotype and allele frequencies for SNP+276 did not differ significantly between the T2DM and NDM groups. Then, a meta-analysis of 23 case-control studies of SNP+45, with a total of 4161 T2DM patients and 3709 controls, and 11 case-control studies of SNP+276, with 2533 T2DM patients and 2212 controls, was performed. All subjects were Han Chinese. The fixed-effects model and random-effects model were applied for dichotomous outcomes to combine the results of the included studies. The results revealed a trend towards an increased risk of T2DM for the SNP+45G allele as compared with the SNP+45T allele (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.11-1.62; P<0.01) in the Chinese Han population. However, there was no association between SNP+276 and T2DM (OR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10; P = 0.31). The results of our association study showed there was no association between the adiponectin SNP+276 polymorphism and T2DM in the Yunnan Han population. The meta-analysis results suggested that the SNP+45G allele might be a susceptibility allele for T2DM in the Chinese Han population. However, we did not observe an association between SNP+276 and T2DM.

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

4.6
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