Association of four CTLA-4 gene polymorphisms with pemphigus risk: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
CTLA-4
Pemphigus
autoimmune
meta-analysis
meta-regression
polymorphism
Journal
The Journal of international medical research
ISSN: 1473-2300
Titre abrégé: J Int Med Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0346411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2024
Oct 2024
Historique:
medline:
14
10
2024
pubmed:
14
10
2024
entrez:
14
10
2024
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This review aimed to summarize the existing data on the contribution of four single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) genes to pemphigus susceptibility. An electronic literature search for eligible studies among those published prior to 30 April 2024 was conducted through the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. To minimize publication bias, an additional search was performed via the Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar search engines. Meta-analyses, together with subgroup analyses and meta-regressions, were performed for the following four CTLA-4 SNPs: rs231775, rs5742909, rs3087243, and rs733618. Combined analyses revealed a significant increase in pemphigus risk conferred by the CTLA-4 rs5742909*C and rs733618*C alleles. Conversely, there was no evidence of any significant association between the rs231775*G and rs3087243*G alleles and susceptibility to pemphigus. Subgroup analyses by ethnicity and pemphigus type (vulgaris or foliaceus) and meta-regressions did not reveal any significant difference. This meta-analysis suggested that two of the four investigated CTLA-4 SNPs were significantly associated with increased pemphigus risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39397428
doi: 10.1177/03000605241282116
doi:
Substances chimiques
CTLA-4 Antigen
0
CTLA4 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3000605241282116Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of conflicting interestThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.