Cargando…

Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk

Background: Numerous studies reported the associations between endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) polymorphisms (4b/a VNTR (rs869109213), G894T (rs1799983) and T786C (rs2070744)) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. However, the conclusions were incongruent. Moreover, since no published m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Di, Liu, Liangshu, Zhang, Chengyu, Lu, Wensheng, Wu, Feifei, He, Xiaofeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9271911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832187
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.887415
_version_ 1784744777810444288
author Wang, Di
Liu, Liangshu
Zhang, Chengyu
Lu, Wensheng
Wu, Feifei
He, Xiaofeng
author_facet Wang, Di
Liu, Liangshu
Zhang, Chengyu
Lu, Wensheng
Wu, Feifei
He, Xiaofeng
author_sort Wang, Di
collection PubMed
description Background: Numerous studies reported the associations between endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) polymorphisms (4b/a VNTR (rs869109213), G894T (rs1799983) and T786C (rs2070744)) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. However, the conclusions were incongruent. Moreover, since no published meta-analyses were performed, a key issue regarding false-positive results needs to be addressed. Furthermore, four new articles have been published on these issues. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was conducted to further explore these associations. Objectives: To investigate the association between eNOS 4b/a, G894T and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk. Methods: Studies were searched by using the PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, Embase, International Statistical Institute (ISI) and the China Wanfang databases. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations using five genetic models. Furthermore, the false-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP), and the Venice criteria were employed to assess the credibility of statistically significant associations. Results: Overall, the eNOS 4b/a polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Asians (bb vs. aa: OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23–0.84; ab + bb vs. aa: OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24–0.86; bb vs. aa + ab: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.91; b vs. a: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57–0.88); the eNOS G894T polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Asians (GT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; T vs. G: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.76); the eNOS T786C polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Indian (TC vs. TT: OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.27–2.94; TC + CC vs. TT: OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.26–3.36; C vs. T: OR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.17–3.08). However, when a sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding low quality and Hardy–Weinberg Disequilibrium (HWD) studies, no significant association was found for the eNOS G894T polymorphism. After credibility assessment, we identified “less-credible positive results” for the statistically significant associations in the current meta-analysis. Conclusion: In conclusion, this article suggests that all substantial relationships between eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk are most likely due to false positive results rather than real connections or biological variables.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9271911
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92719112022-07-12 Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk Wang, Di Liu, Liangshu Zhang, Chengyu Lu, Wensheng Wu, Feifei He, Xiaofeng Front Genet Genetics Background: Numerous studies reported the associations between endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) polymorphisms (4b/a VNTR (rs869109213), G894T (rs1799983) and T786C (rs2070744)) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. However, the conclusions were incongruent. Moreover, since no published meta-analyses were performed, a key issue regarding false-positive results needs to be addressed. Furthermore, four new articles have been published on these issues. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was conducted to further explore these associations. Objectives: To investigate the association between eNOS 4b/a, G894T and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk. Methods: Studies were searched by using the PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, Embase, International Statistical Institute (ISI) and the China Wanfang databases. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations using five genetic models. Furthermore, the false-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP), and the Venice criteria were employed to assess the credibility of statistically significant associations. Results: Overall, the eNOS 4b/a polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Asians (bb vs. aa: OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23–0.84; ab + bb vs. aa: OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24–0.86; bb vs. aa + ab: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.91; b vs. a: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57–0.88); the eNOS G894T polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Asians (GT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; T vs. G: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.76); the eNOS T786C polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Indian (TC vs. TT: OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.27–2.94; TC + CC vs. TT: OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.26–3.36; C vs. T: OR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.17–3.08). However, when a sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding low quality and Hardy–Weinberg Disequilibrium (HWD) studies, no significant association was found for the eNOS G894T polymorphism. After credibility assessment, we identified “less-credible positive results” for the statistically significant associations in the current meta-analysis. Conclusion: In conclusion, this article suggests that all substantial relationships between eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk are most likely due to false positive results rather than real connections or biological variables. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9271911/ /pubmed/35832187 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.887415 Text en Copyright © 2022 Wang, Liu, Zhang, Lu, Wu and He. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Genetics
Wang, Di
Liu, Liangshu
Zhang, Chengyu
Lu, Wensheng
Wu, Feifei
He, Xiaofeng
Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title_full Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title_fullStr Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title_short Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk
title_sort evaluation of association studies and meta-analyses of enos polymorphisms in type 2 diabetes mellitus risk
topic Genetics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9271911/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35832187
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.887415
work_keys_str_mv AT wangdi evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk
AT liuliangshu evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk
AT zhangchengyu evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk
AT luwensheng evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk
AT wufeifei evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk
AT hexiaofeng evaluationofassociationstudiesandmetaanalysesofenospolymorphismsintype2diabetesmellitusrisk