4.6 Review

Roles of UGT1A1 Gly71Arg and TATA promoter polymorphisms in neonatal hyperbilirubinemia: A meta-analysis

期刊

GENE
卷 736, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gene.2020.144409

关键词

Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia; Gly71Arg; TATA promoter; Single nucleotide polymorphism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To identify the association between UGT1A1 Gly71Arg and TATA promoter polymorphisms and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia. Methods: The studies related to the correlation between UGT1A1 Gly71Arg and TATA promoter polymorphisms and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia were searched systematically in various databases. According to the presence or absence of significant heterogeneity, a random-effect or fixed-effect model was chosen to estimate the overall odds rations (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis). Results: Totally 21 studies on Gly71Arg polymorphism including 4738 neonates and 13 studies on TATA promoter polymorphism involving 2841 neonates were identified. Significant associations were presented between Gly71Arg polymorphism and neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in Asia [A vs. G, OR(95%C1): 2.327(1.904-2.845), P < 0.001; AA + GA vs. GG, OR(95%CI): 2.253(1.954-2.598), P < 0.001; AA vs. GG + GA, OR(95%CI): 5.166(3.520-7.564), P < 0.001; AA vs. GG, OR(95%CI): 6.458(4.376-9.531), P < 0.001; GA vs. GG, OR (95%CI): 1.920(1.654-2.228), P < 0.001] and Africa [A vs. G, OR(95% CI): 9.750(1.214-78.301), P = 0.032; AA + GA vs. GG, OR(95% CI): 11.000(1.290-93.832), P = 0.028; GA vs. GG, OR(95% CI): 10.000(1.163-85.998), P = 0.036]. TATA promoter polymorphism was associated with an increased risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in Asia [TA7/7 vs. TA6/6 + TA6/7, OR(95%CI): 1.670(1.034-2.696), P = 0.036] and Europe [TA7/7 vs. TA6/6 + TA6/7, OR(95%CI): 2.627(1.722-4.008), P < 0.001]. Conclusion: The risk of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia may be increased by the variation of UGT1A1 Gly71Arg in Asia and Africa, as well as the variation of UGT1A1 TATA promoter in Asia and Europe.

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