Cargando…
Quantitative assessment of the association between GRIA1 polymorphisms and migraine risk
Purpose: The association between GRIA1 rs548294 G>A and rs2195450 C>T polymorphisms and migraine risk has been reported in several case–control studies. However, the results of studies are inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to more precisely estimate the association of the two po...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Portland Press Ltd.
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6294621/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30446525 http://dx.doi.org/10.1042/BSR20181347 |
Sumario: | Purpose: The association between GRIA1 rs548294 G>A and rs2195450 C>T polymorphisms and migraine risk has been reported in several case–control studies. However, the results of studies are inconsistent. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to more precisely estimate the association of the two polymorphisms with migraine risk. Methods: Eligible studies were retrieved and screened from the online databases (EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, Wanfang, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure). The pooled odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95.0% confidence intervals (CIs) was assessed using random- or fixed-effects model. Results: A total of 1233 cases and 1374 controls from four eligible studies were included. The pooled analysis showed that GRIA1 rs548294 G>A polymorphism was not significantly associated with migraine risk. GRIA1 rs2195450 C>T polymorphism was significantly associated with migraine risk under heterozygous model (CT vs. CC, OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.02–1.48, P(Z) = 0.03). Further subgroup analysis based on ethnicity showed a significant association of GRIA1 rs2195450 C>T polymorphism with migraine risk in Asian population, but not in Caucasian population. Conclusions: Our results indicates that GRIA1 rs2195450 C>T polymorphism is significantly associated with migraine risk. However, the number of studies included in the meta-analysis was small. Thus, more high quality case–control studies with a large sample size are still required to confirm these findings. |
---|