Wang D, Liu L, Zhang C, Lu W, Wu F, He X. Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk.
Front Genet 2022;
13:887415. [PMID:
35832187 PMCID:
PMC9271911 DOI:
10.3389/fgene.2022.887415]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2022] [Accepted: 05/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse