ArticleBMC medical genetics2011
No association of TNFRSF1B variants with type 2 diabetes in Indians of Indo-European origin.
Article in BMC medical genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome wide association study of uric acid in Indian population and interaction of identified variants with Type 2 diabetes.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- Genetics of Familial Combined Hyperlipidemia (FCHL) Disorder: An Update.Biochemical genetics · 2022Review
- Identification of Pre-Diabetic Biomarkers in the Progression of Diabetes Mellitus.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Transcriptome profiling of four candidate milk genes in milk and tissue samples of temperate and tropical cattle.Journal of genetics · 2019Article
- Identification of microsatellite markers and their application in yellow catfish (Journal of genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere has been no systematic evaluation of the association between genetic variants of type 2 receptor for TNFα (TNFR2) and type 2 diabetes, despite strong biological evidence for the role of this receptor in the pathogenesis of this complex disorder. In view of this, we performed a comprehensive association analysis of TNFRSF1B variants with type 2 diabetes in 4,200 Indo-European subjects from North India.
methodsThe initial phase evaluated association of seven SNPs viz. rs652625, rs496888, rs6697733, rs945439, rs235249, rs17883432 and rs17884213 with type 2 diabetes in 2,115 participants (1,073 type 2 diabetes patients and 1,042 control subjects). Further, we conducted replication analysis of three associated SNPs in 2,085 subjects (1,047 type 2 diabetes patients and 1,038 control subjects).
resultsWe observed nominal association of rs945439, rs235249 and rs17884213 with type 2 diabetes (P < 0.05) in the initial phase. Haplotype CC of rs945439 and rs235249 conferred increased susceptibility for type 2 diabetes [OR = 1.19 (95%CI 1.03-1.37), P = 0.019/Pperm = 0.076] whereas, TG haplotype of rs235249 and rs17884213 provided protection against type 2 diabetes [OR = 0.83 (95%CI 0.72-0.95, P = 7.2 × 10-3/Pperm = 0.019]. We also observed suggestive association of rs496888 with plasma hsCRP levels [P = 0.042]. However, the association of rs945439, rs235249 and rs17884213 with type 2 diabetes was not replicated in the second study population. Meta-analysis of the two studies also failed to detect any association with type 2 diabetes.
conclusionsOur two-stage association analysis suggests that TNFRSF1B variants are not the determinants of genetic risk of type 2 diabetes in North Indians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.