Evaluating the Association between p53 Codon 72 Arg>Pro Polymorphism and Risk of Ovary Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Mohammed A A Alqumber, Naseem Akhter, Shafiul Haque, Aditya K Panda and Raju K Mandal

PLOS ONE, 2014, vol. 9, issue 4, 1-7

Abstract: Aim: Allelic polymorphism in codon 72 of the p53 tumor suppressor gene causes imbalance of p53 protein expression. Earlier studies have shown association between allelic polymorphism in codon 72 of the p53 gene with risk of ovary cancer (OC); however the results are inconclusive and conflicting. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to investigate the relation between p53 codon 72 Arg>Pro polymorphism and overall OC susceptibility. Methods: We searched all eligible published studies based on the association between codon 72 of the p53 Arg>Pro polymorphism and risk of OC. Data were pooled together from individual studies and meta-analysis was performed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI were calculated for allele contrast, homozygous, heterozygous, dominant and recessive genetic models. Results: A total of twelve studies comprising of 993 OC cases and 1264 healthy controls were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, no significant association was detected for Pro allele carrier (Pro vs. Arg: p = 0.916; OR = 0.980, 95% CI = 0.677 to 1.419), homozygous (Pro/Pro vs. Arg/Arg: p = 0.419; OR = 0.731, 95% CI = 0.341 to 1.564), heterozygous (Arg/Pro vs. Arg/Arg: p = 0.248; OR = 1.237, 95% CI = 0.862 to 1.773), dominant (Pro/Pro+Arg/Pro vsArg/Arg: p = 0.699; OR = 1.089, 95% CI = 0.706 to 1.681), and recessive (Pro/Pro vs Arg/Arg+Arg/Pro: p = 0.329; OR = 0.754, 95% CI = 0.428 to 1.329) genetic models, respectively. Also, in the stratified analysis by ethnicity, no significant association of this polymorphism with risk of OC was found in the Caucasian population. Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggested that codon 72 of the p53 Arg>Pro polymorphism may not significantly contribute in ovary cancer susceptibility. However, future large studies with gene-gene and gene-environment interactions are needed to validate these findings.

Date: 2014
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0094874 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 94874&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0094874

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094874

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone (plosone@plos.org).