4.6 Article

Four genetic polymorphisms of paraoxonase gene and risk of coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis based on 88 case-control studies

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 214, 期 2, 页码 377-385

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2010.11.028

关键词

Paraoxonase; Coronary heart disease; Genetics; Haplotypes; Myocardial infarction; Risk factor; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30772157]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The human paraoxonase (PON) is calcium dependent HDL associated ester hydrolase which has attracted considerable attention as a candidate gene for coronary heart disease based on its enzyme function as a key factor in lipoprotein catabolism pathways. Many studies have examined the association between polymorphisms in the PON gene and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), but the results have been inconsistent. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of 88 studies on 4 PON polymorphisms [Q192R, L55M, and T(-107)C in the PON1 and the S311C in the PON2] published before August 2010, including a total of 24,702 CHD cases and 38,232 controls. We also systematically explored potential sources of heterogeneity. Result: In a combined analysis, the summary per-allele odds ratio for CHD of the 192R was 1.11 (95% CI: 1.05-1.17). However, when the analyses were restricted to 10 larger studies (n > 500 cases), the summary per-allele odds ratio was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.90-1.02). Our analyses detected a possibility of publication bias with an overestimate of the true association by smaller studies. A meta-analysis of studies on the 55M, (-107)T, and 311C variant showed no significant overall association with CHD, yielding a per-allele odds ratio of 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-1.00), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.15) and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.90-1.16) respectively. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested an overall weak association between the R192 polymorphism and CHD risk. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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