The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2014
Lack of association between the 389C>T polymorphism (rs769217) in the catalase (CAT) gene and the risk of vitiligo: an update by meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
He Jie, Li Xiaoyan, Li Yunhui, Ren Bocheng, Sun Jian, Zhang Wei, Li Wancheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The catalase (CAT) T/C at codon 389 in the exon 9 polymorphism has been implicated in susceptibility to vitiligo but a large number of studies have reported inconclusive results. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the association between the catalase gene polymorphism (389C>T) and the risk of vitiligo.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was carried out to analyse the association between 389C>T and vitiligo risk.
RESULTS: Eight case-control studies with 2923 cases and 4237 controls were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that there was no association between this polymorphism and vitiligo (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.98-1.20, P = 0.11, T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.99-1.16, P = 0.092). In a subgroup analysis by ethnicity, no significant association between the CAT gene 389C>T polymorphism and vitiligo susceptibility was found in Caucasians (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.98-1.35, P = 0.08; T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.97-1.19, P = 0.173) and Asians (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.12, 95% CI =0.93-1.34, P = 0.23; T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.94-1.21, P = 0.321).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 389C>T may not contribute to vitiligo susceptibility. However, larger primary studies with the consideration of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions are still required to further evaluate the interaction of CAT gene polymorphism with vitiligo susceptibility.
METHODS: A meta-analysis was carried out to analyse the association between 389C>T and vitiligo risk.
RESULTS: Eight case-control studies with 2923 cases and 4237 controls were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that there was no association between this polymorphism and vitiligo (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 0.98-1.20, P = 0.11, T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.99-1.16, P = 0.092). In a subgroup analysis by ethnicity, no significant association between the CAT gene 389C>T polymorphism and vitiligo susceptibility was found in Caucasians (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.98-1.35, P = 0.08; T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.97-1.19, P = 0.173) and Asians (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 1.12, 95% CI =0.93-1.34, P = 0.23; T versus C: OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.94-1.21, P = 0.321).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that 389C>T may not contribute to vitiligo susceptibility. However, larger primary studies with the consideration of gene-environment and gene-gene interactions are still required to further evaluate the interaction of CAT gene polymorphism with vitiligo susceptibility.