Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25803740›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

MTHFR 677C>T polymorphism and the risk of breast cancer: evidence from an original study and pooled data for 28031 cases and 31880 controls.

Singh Pooja, Justin Carlus, Deepa Sekhar, Amirtharaj Francis, Nishi Gupta, Rituraj Konwar, Sandeep Kumar, Surender Kumar, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Singh Rajender

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Lack of Association ofGenetics research · 2023
    Article
  4. Genes · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. OncoTargets and therapy · 2017
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Association ofBiomarkers in cancer · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Singh PoojaDivision of Endocrinology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India; Department of Pathology, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Justin CarlusCentre for Genetics and Inherited Diseases (CGID), Taibah University, Al- Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad, India.
Deepa SekharDivision of Endocrinology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India.
Amirtharaj FrancisCentre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad, India.
Nishi GuptaDivision of Endocrinology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India.
Rituraj KonwarDivision of Endocrinology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India.
Sandeep KumarAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, India.
Surender KumarDepartment of Surgery, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, India.
Kumarasamy ThangarajCentre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Uppal Road, Hyderabad, India.
Singh RajenderDivision of Endocrinology, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) acts at an important metabolic point in the regulation of cellular methylation reaction. It assists in the conversion of 5, 10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate. The latter aids in remethylation of homocysteine to de novo methionine that is required for DNA synthesis. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of MTHFR 677 C>T polymorphism on the risk of breast cancer in the Indian sub-continent. METHODS AND

resultsWe genotyped 677 C>T locus in 1096 individuals that were classified into cases (N=588) and controls (N=508). Genotype data were analyzed using chi-square test. No significant difference was observed in the distribution of genotypes between cases and controls in north Indian (P = 0.932), south Indian (P = 0.865), and pooled data (P = 0.680). To develop a consensus regarding the impact of 677C>T polymorphism on breast cancer risk, we also conducted a meta-analysis on 28031 cases and 31880 controls that were pooled from sixty one studies. The overall summary estimate upon meta-analysis suggested no significant correlation between the 677C>T substitution and breast cancer in the dominant model (Fixed effect model: OR = 0.97, P=0.072, Random effects model: OR = 0.96, P = 0.084) or the recessive model (Fixed effect model: OR = 1.05, P = 0.089; Random effects model: OR= 1.08, P= 0.067).

conclusion677 C>T substitution does not affect breast cancer risk in the Indo-European and Dravidian populations of India. Analysis on pooled data further ruled out association between the 677 C>T polymorphism and breast cancer. Therefore, 677 C>T substitution does not appear to influence the risk of breast cancer.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAsian PeopleBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIndiaMethylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (NADPH2)Middle AgedRiskYoung AdultMethylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (NADPH2)

Identifiers

PMID25803740
PMCPMC4372432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.