Association between LRP1 C766T polymorphism and Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility: a meta-analysis
Abstract Low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 (LRP1) C766T polymorphism (rs1799986) has been extensively investigated for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) susceptibility. However, results in different studies have been contradictory. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis containing 6455 AD c...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/8a0c87ff6c754413a7fe6e0a0cc21c2c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Low density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 1 (LRP1) C766T polymorphism (rs1799986) has been extensively investigated for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) susceptibility. However, results in different studies have been contradictory. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis containing 6455 AD cases and 6304 controls from 26 independent case–control studies to determine whether there was an association between the LRP1 C766T polymorphism and AD susceptibility. The combined analysis showed that there was no significant association between LRP1 C766T polymorphism and AD susceptibility (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 0.920, 95% CI = 0.817–1.037, P = 0.172). In subgroup analysis, significant decreased AD susceptibility was found among Asian population in allele model (T versus C: OR = 0.786, 95% CI = 0.635–0.974, P = 0.028) and dominant model (TT + CT versus CC: OR = 0.800, 95% CI = 0.647–0.990, P = 0.040). Moreover, T allele of LRP1 C766T was statistically associated with late onset of AD (LOAD) (T versus C: OR = 0.858, 95% CI = 0.748–0.985, P = 0.029; TT + CT versus CC: OR = 0.871, 95% CI = 0.763–0.994, P = 0.040). In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggested that LRP1 C766T polymorphism was associated with lower risk of AD in Asian, and could reduce LOAD risk especially. Considering some limitations of our meta-analysis, further large-scale studies should be done to reach a more comprehensive understanding. |
|---|