4.5 Review

The association between brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene polymorphism and migraine: a meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEADACHE AND PAIN
卷 18, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1186/s10194-017-0725-2

关键词

BDNF; rs6265; rs2049046; Val66Met polymorphism; Migraine

资金

  1. Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou [201508020026]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Migraine is a recurrent headache disease related to genetic variants. The brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) gene rs6265 (Val66Met) and rs2049046 polymorphism has been found to be associated with migraine. However, their roles in this disorder are not well established. Then we conduct this meta-analysis to address this issue. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane databases were systematically searched to identify all relevant studies. Odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to estimate the strength of association between BDNF gene rs6265 and rs2049046 polymorphism and migraine. Results: Four studies with 1598 cases and 1585 controls, fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. Overall data showed significant association between rs6265 polymorphism and migraine in allele model (OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.76-0.99, p = 0.03), recessive model (OR = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.72-0.98, p = 0.03) and additive model (GG vs GA: OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.72-1.00, p = 0.04), respectively. We also found significant association between rs2049046(A/T) polymorphism and migraine in allele model (OR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.79-0.98, p = 0.02), recessive model (OR = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.67-0.96, p = 0.02) and additive model (AA vs TT: OR = 0.72, 95%CI: 0.57-0.92, p = 0.008; AA vs AT: OR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.67-0.99, p = 0.03), respectively. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggested that BDNF rs6265 and rs2049046 polymorphism were associated with common migraine in Caucasian population. Further studies are awaited to update this finding in Asian population and other types of migraine.

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