Association between the ESR1 and ESR2 polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk: An updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gene polymorphisms of estrogen receptor (ESR) 1 PvuII (rs2234693), XbaI (rs9340799), G2014A (rs2228480), ESR2 AluI (rs4986938), and RsaI (rs1256049) had been reported to be associated with the risk of osteoporosis. However, these conclusions were inconsistent, therefore, an updated meta-analysis was conducted to further explore these issues. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between gene polymorphisms of ESR1 PvuII (rs2234693), XbaI (rs9340799), G2014A (rs2228480), ESR2 AluI (rs4986938), RsaI (rs1256049), and osteoporosis risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Embase, CNKI, and China Wanfang databases were searched. Association was assessed using odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Moreover, the false-positive reporting probability, Bayesian false-finding probability, and Venetian criteria were used to assess the credibility of statistically significant associations. RESULTS: Overall, ESR1 PvuII (rs2234693) and XbaI (rs9340799) were associated with the risk of osteoporosis in Indians. Moreover, ESR1 G2014A (rs2228480) was associated with the decreased risk of osteoporosis in East Asians. Moreover, ESR2 Alul (rs4986938) was associated with the increased risk of osteoporosis in East Asians and Caucasians. There was a significant association between ESR2 Rsal (rs1256049) and osteoporosis risk in overall population. When only high-quality and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, all results did not change in the present study. When the credibility was evaluated applying false-positive reporting probability, Bayesian false-finding probability, and Venetian criteria, all significant associations were considered as false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, this study shows that all substantial associations between gene polymorphisms of ESR1 (PvuII, XbaI, and G2014A) and ESR 2 (AluI and RsaI) and osteoporosis risk are possibly false positive results instead of real associations or biological variables.

Association between OPG polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk: An updated meta-analysis.

Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between osteoprotegerin (OPG) polymorphisms (A163G (rs3102735), T245G (rs3134069), T950C (rs2073617), G1181C (rs2073618)) and osteoporosis risk. However, their conclusions are inconsistent. In addition, some new studies have been updated, and more importantly, previous meta-analyses have not tested for false-positive results. In order to further explore these associations, we recently conducted a meta-analysis. Objectives: To study the relationship between OPG polymorphisms A163G, T245G, T950C, G1181C and the risk of osteoporosis. Methods: PubMed, Medline, International Statistical Institute (ISI), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Wanfang Database were used for research searches. Associations were assessed with five genetic models using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In addition, confidence in statistically significant associations was assessed using false-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian probability of False discovery (BFDP), and Venice criteria. Results: On the whole, the OPG A163G polymorphism was not significantly associated with risk of osteoporosis. However, in a subgroup analysis, we found that the OPG A163G polymorphism increased the risk of osteoporosis in Caucasians (AG + GG vs AA: OR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.06-1.73; AA + GG vs AG: OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49-0.82) and the female (G vs A: OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.03-1.64; AG + GG vs AA: OR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.18-1.71). At the same time, the OPG G1181C polymorphism reduces the risk of osteoporosis (C vs G: OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74-0.95; CC vs GG: OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-0.93; GC + CC vs GG: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.67-0.95; CC vs GG + GC: OR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.70-1.00). Moreover, a significantly decreased risk of osteoporosis was also discovered in Asian (C vs G: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.66-0.98; CC vs GG: OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.47-0.95; GC + CC vs GG: OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.58-0.95) and the female (C vs G: OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75-0.97; CC vs GG: OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.61-0.96; GC + CC vs GG: OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.66-0.95). Finally, we did not find a close association between OPG T245G and T950C polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk. However, when we retained only studies in the control group that was consistent with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) and high-quality scores, we observed that the OPG A163G polymorphism increased the risk of osteoporosis in the overall analysis (G vs A: OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.16-1.68; GG vs AA: OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.20-3.21; AG + GG vs AA: OR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.22-1.72). Finally, after the credibility assessment, we concluded that all statistically significant association results in the meta-analysis in this study and those in the previous study were 'positive results with low confidence'. Conclusion: In conclusion, our study concluded that all meaningful results between OPG A163G and G1181C polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk were false-positive results rather than true associations.

Individual effects of GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms on cervical or ovarian cancer risk: An updated meta-analysis.

Background: Studies have shown that glutathione S-transferase M1 (GSTM1) and. glutathione S-transferase T1 (GSTT1) null genotype may increase the risk of cervical cancer (CC) or ovarian cancer (OC), however, the results of published original studies and meta-analyses are inconsistent. Objectives: To investigate the association between GSTM1 present/null and GSTT1 present/null polymorphisms, with the risk of cervical cancer or ovarian cancer. Methods: The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the association between GSTM1 present/null and GSTT1 present/null polymorphisms and the risk of cervical cancer or ovarian cancer. To assess the confidence of statistically significant associations, we applied false positive reporting probability (FPRP) and bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP) tests. Results: Overall analysis showed that GSTM1 null was associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer, and subgroup analysis showed a significant increase in cervical cancer risk in Indian and Chinese populations; GSTT1 was not found null genotype are significantly associated with cervical cancer. Overall analysis showed that GSTM1 and GSTT1 null were not associated with the risk of ovarian cancer, subgroup analysis showed that GSTM1 null was associated with an increased risk of OC in East Asia, and GSTT1 null was associated with an increased risk of OC in South America. However, when we used false positive reporting probability and bayesian false discovery probability to verify the confidence of a significant association, all positive results showed "low confidence" (FPRP > .2, BFDP > .8). Conclusion: Overall, this study strongly suggests that all positive results should be interpreted with caution and are likely a result of missing plausibility rather than a true association.

Evaluation of Association Studies and an Updated Meta-Analysis of VDR Polymorphisms in Osteoporotic Fracture Risk.

Background: Several studies have examined the association between vitamin D receptor (VDR) polymorphisms and osteoporotic fracture risk; however, the results are not uniform. Furthermore, many new articles have been published, and therefore, an updated meta-analysis was performed to further explore these issues. Objectives: The aim of the study was to investigate the association between VDR, BsmI, ApaI, TaqI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms and osteoporotic fracture risk. Methods: The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the association between VDR BsmI, ApaI, TaqI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms and the risk of osteoporotic fracture. We also used the false-positive reporting probability (FPRP) test and the Venice criteria to evaluate the credibility of the statistically significant associations. Results: Overall, this study found that the VDR ApaI and BsmI polymorphisms significantly increased the risk of osteoporotic fracture in European countries and America, respectively. However, when sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding low-quality and Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium (HWD) studies, it was found that only individuals with the double-mutated genotype have an increased risk of osteoporotic fracture in European countries. In addition, when the credibility of the positive results was assessed, it was found that the positive results were not credible. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicates that there may be no significant association among the polymorphisms of VDR BsmI, ApaI, TaqI, FokI, and Cdx2 and the risk of osteoporotic fracture. The increased risk of osteoporotic fracture is most likely due to false-positive results.

Association between vitamin D receptor BsmI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have reported the association between vitamin D receptor (VDR) polymorphism and osteoporosis risk. However, their results were conflicting. Six previous meta-analyses have been published to analyze VDR BsmI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms on osteoporosis risk. However, they did not evaluate the reliability of statistically significant associations. Furthermore, a lot of new articles have been published on these themes, and therefore an updated meta-analysis was performed to further explore these issues. OBJECTIVES: To explore the association between VDR BsmI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk. METHODS: The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were pooled to evaluate the association between VDR BsmI, FokI, and Cdx2 polymorphisms and osteoporosis risk. To evaluate the credibility of statistically significant associations, we applied the false-positive report probabilities (FPRPs) test and the Venice criteria. RESULTS: Overall, statistically significantly increased osteoporosis risk was found in Indians and women for VDR FokI polymorphism. Statistically significantly decreased osteoporosis risk was found in West Asians for VDR BsmI polymorphism. However, when we performed a sensitivity analysis after excluding low quality and Hardy-Weinberg Disequilibrium (HWD) studies, significantly decreased osteoporosis risk was only found in overall population for VDR BsmI polymorphism. Further, less-credible positive results were identified when we evaluated the credibility of positive results. CONCLUSION: These positive findings should be interpreted with caution and indicate that significant association may most likely result from less-credible, rather than from true associations or biological factors on the VDR BsmI and FokI polymorphisms with osteoporosis risk.