A meta-analysis on the susceptibility to the development of bladder cancer in the presence of DNMT3A, DNMT3B, and MTHFR gene polymorphisms

Touala-Chaila, Zohra; Abderrahmane, Rym-Khadidja; Benseddik, Khedidja; Meroufel, Djebaria Naima

doi:10.1186/s12301-022-00301-x

African Journal of Urology

Table 2 Meta-analysis of the association between polymorphisms of genes MTHFR, DNMTs and bladder cancer susceptibility

From: A meta-analysis on the susceptibility to the development of bladder cancer in the presence of DNMT3A, DNMT3B, and MTHFR gene polymorphisms

SNPs	Association test			Heterogeneity			Publication bias
Genetic models	OR	95% CI	p-value	Effect model	P-value*	I²	**Egger’s test p-value
*MTHFR* rs1801133
T vs. C^a	1.021	[0.927–1.124]	0.666	REM	0.013	0.485	0.630
TT vs. TC + CC^b	0.962	[0.802–1.154]	0.682	REM	0.093	0.328	0.936
TT + TC vs. CC^c	1.057	[0.936–1.194]	0.366	REM	0.035	0.420	0.397
TT vs. CC^d	0.988	[0.798–1.223]	0.914	REM	0.032	0.427	0.869
TT vs. TC^e	0.949	[0.826–1.092]	0.470	FEM	0.203	0.215	0.825
TC vs. CC^f	1.058	[0.966–1.158]	0.219	FEM	0.118	0.299	0.394
*MTHFR* rs1801131
C vs. A^a	1.029	[0.870–1.215]	0.736	REM	0	0.741	0.787
CC vs. CA + AA^b	0.889	[0.689–1.147]	0.368	REM	0.092	0.373	0.926
CC + CA vs. AA^c	1.083	[0.867–1.354]	0.480	REM	0	0.745	0.867
CC vs. AA ^d	0.922	[0.637–1.334]	0.667	REM	8e−04	0.653	0.991
CC vs.CA ^e	0.845	[0.694–1.029]	0.094	FEM	0.557	0	0.594
CA vs. AA ^f	1.115	[0.902–1.380]	0.311	REM	2e−04	0.695	0.814
*MTHFR* rs2274976
A vs. G^a	1.044	[0.714–1.528]	0.820	FEM	0.77	0	–
AA vs. AG + GG^b	2.020	[0.365–11.157]	0.419	FEM	–	–	–
AA + AG vs. GG^c	1.007	[0.671–1.512]	0.972	FEM	0.87	0	–
AA vs. GG^d	2.012	[0.363–11.140]	0.423	FEM	–	–	–
AA vs. AG^e	2.058	[0.353–11.988]	0.421	FEM	–	–	–
AG vs. GG^f	0.971	[0.641–1.470]	0.889	FEM	0.97	0	–
*DNMT3A rs1550117*
A vs. G^a	0.804	[0.632–1.021]	0.074	FEM	0.712	0	–
AA vs. AG + GG^b	0.720	[0.344–1.507]	0.384	FEM	0.773	0	–
AA + AG vs. GG^c	0.780	[0.590–1.030]	0.080	FEM	0.744	0	–
AA vs. GG^d	0.668	[0.317–1.407]	0.289	FEM	0.746	0	–
AA vs. AG^e	0.842	[0.392–1.810]	0.660	FEM	0.826	0	–
AG vs. GG^f	0.794	[0.595–1.059]	0.116	FEM	0.800	0	–
*DNMT3B rs1569686*
G vs. T^a	0.882	[0.614–1.267]	0.499	FEM	0.984	0	–
GG vs. GT + TT^b	0.245	[0.030–1.971]	0.186	FEM	0.890	0	–
GG + GT vs. TT^c	0.949	[0.649–1.390]	0.791	FEM	0.944	0	–
GG vs. TT ^d	0.246	[0.030–1.979]	0.187	FEM	0.893	0	–
GG vs. GT^e	0.237	[0.028–1.958]	0.181	FEM	0.872	0	–
GT vs. TT ^f	1.026	[0.698–1.507]	0.896	FEM	0.875	0	–

REM random effect model, FEM fixed effect model
*REM if p-value < 0.1, FEM if otherwise
**p-value > 0.05 indicate that there is no publication bias
^aAllele contrast
^bRecessive model
^cDominant model
^dHomozygote model (homozygous rare vs. homozygous frequent allele)
^eHomozygous rare vs. Heterozygous
^fHeterozygote model (heterozygous vs. homozygous frequent allele)

Back to article page