Non-Cochrane · aetiology · PM32460726
The association between genetic variants in lactotransferrin and dental caries: a meta- and gene-based analysis.
Li Xueyan, Su Yi, Liu Di, et al. · BMC medical genetics · 2020 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12881-020-01029-7
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
17
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
6
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 17 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Human subjects screened for dental caries in both case and control groups, with genotype data on LTF variants available in both groups | Subjects with and without dental caries from 6 studies (main rs1126478 meta-analysis: 1066 caries and 736 controls; n=1802 across 4 studies) |
| Intervention | Genetic variants (polymorphisms) in the lactotransferrin (LTF) gene, primarily rs1126478 | rs1126478 (4-study meta-analysis); single-study LTF variants rs11216477, rs6441989, rs2073495, rs11716497; gene-based joint analysis of multiple LTF variants |
| Comparison | Reference alleles/genotypes under additive, allelic, dominant, recessive and co-dominant genetic models | Caries-free controls; reference alleles and genotypes per genetic model |
| Outcomes | Risk of dental caries (odds ratio); dental caries severity | Dental caries risk (OR); dental caries severity; joint (gene-based) association |
| Study designs | Human genetic association studies with genotype data in case and control groups | 6 case-control genetic association studies (4 in the main rs1126478 meta-analysis) |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified |
Search date: December 5, 2019 (papers published before this date). Databases: PubMed; Cochrane Library; HuGE; Google Scholar
Questions and results
rs1126478, additive (per-allele) model vs Reference allele A
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Sensitivity analysis excluding the study using adult data (Fine 2013) The additive-model association remained non-significant after excluding the adult-data study (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.35; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries); Additional file 1 (Figure S1) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.47 [0.92, 2.35] | 3 studies · 1752 participants | Ungraded |
Dental caries rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under an additive genetic model (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.02; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Fig. 3; Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.41 [0.98, 2.02] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | Ungraded |
rs1126478, allelic model (G allele) vs A allele
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Allelic model (G vs. A) rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under an allelic model (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.48 to 4.13; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.41 [0.48, 4.13] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | Ungraded |
rs1126478, dominant model (GG or GA genotype) vs AA genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Dominant model (GG + GA vs. AA) rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under a dominant model (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.03; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.32 [0.43, 4.03] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | Ungraded |
rs1126478, recessive model (GG genotype) vs GA or AA genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Recessive model (GG vs. GA + AA) rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under a recessive model (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 5.38; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.55 [0.44, 5.38] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | Ungraded |
rs1126478, co-dominant model (GA genotype) vs GG or AA genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Co-dominant model (GA vs. GG + AA) rs1126478 showed no significant association with dental caries under a co-dominant model (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.32; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.97 [0.72, 1.32] | 4 studies · 1802 participants | Ungraded |
rs1126478 genotype distribution vs Caries-free control genotype distribution
Population: Human subjects stratified by dental caries severity and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries (by severity) Moderate caries (DMFT 8 to 12); Wang et al. 2018 rs1126478 was significantly associated with moderate-level dental caries in a single study (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.80; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.72 [0.65, 0.80] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries (by severity) Moderate caries (DMFT 2 to 3); Volckova et al. 2014 rs1126478 showed no significant association with moderate-level dental caries in a single study (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.34; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.80, 1.34] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries (by severity) Severe/high caries (DMFT 4 or more); Volckova et al. 2014 rs1126478 showed no significant association with severe-level dental caries in a single study (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.54; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.20 [0.94, 1.54] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries (by severity) Low caries (DMFT 1); Volckova et al. 2014 rs1126478 was inversely associated with low-level dental caries in a single study (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.90; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.65 [0.47, 0.90] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries (by severity) Severe caries (DMFT 13 to 20); Wang et al. 2018 rs1126478 was significantly associated with severe-level dental caries in a single study (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.78 [0.70, 0.87] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Dental caries (by severity) Moderate or severe caries combined; Volckova et al. 2014 rs1126478 was significantly associated with combined moderate-or-severe dental caries in a single study (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.50 to 2.37; ungraded). Source: Results (Association of rs1126748 with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.88 [1.50, 2.37] | 1 study | Ungraded |
LTF rs1126477 variant vs Reference allele/genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Single study (Wang et al. 2018) LTF rs11216477 was significantly associated with dental caries in a single study (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.29; ungraded). Source: Table 3; Results (Association of other genetic variants in LTF with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.17 [1.06, 1.29] | 1 study · 910 participants | Ungraded |
LTF rs6441989 variant vs Reference allele/genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Single study (Doetzer et al. 2015) LTF rs6441989 showed no significant association with dental caries in a single study (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.14; ungraded). Source: Table 3; Results (Association of other genetic variants in LTF with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.02 [0.92, 1.14] | 1 study · 677 participants | Ungraded |
LTF rs2073495 variant vs Reference allele/genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Single study (Doetzer et al. 2015) LTF rs2073495 showed no significant association with dental caries in a single study (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; ungraded). Source: Table 3; Results (Association of other genetic variants in LTF with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 0.99 [0.86, 1.15] | 1 study · 677 participants | Ungraded |
LTF rs11716497 variant vs Reference allele/genotype
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Single study (Doetzer et al. 2015) LTF rs11716497 showed no significant association with dental caries in a single study (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.21; ungraded). Source: Table 3; Results (Association of other genetic variants in LTF with dental caries) · same question in other reviews | OR 1.04 [0.90, 1.21] | 1 study · 677 participants | Ungraded |
Multiple LTF gene variants (joint / gene-based) vs Caries-free controls
Population: Human subjects with dental caries and caries-free controls
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Dental caries Gene-based joint association (LTF) A gene-based analysis indicated that multiple LTF variants were jointly associated with dental caries risk (weighted TPM P = 0.0007; no pooled effect estimate; ungraded). Source: Table 4; Results (Gene-based analysis) · same question in other reviews | P-value (gene-based, weighted TPM) 0.0007 | NR | Ungraded |
Included primary studies 6
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Azevedo 2010 Analysis of the association between lactotransferrin (LTF) gene polymorphism and dental caries. PMID:20485928 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Doetzer 2015 Lactotransferrin Gene Polymorphism Associated with Caries Experience. PMID:25998152 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fine 2013 A lactotransferrin single nucleotide polymorphism demonstrates biological activity that can reduce susceptibility to caries. PMID:23460521 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Volckova 2014 Lack of association between lactotransferrin polymorphism and dental caries. PMID:24217007 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2017 The association of Enamelin, Lactoferrin, and Tumour necrosis factor alpha gene polymorphisms with high caries susceptibility in Chinese… PMID:28395167 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Wang 2018 Lack of association between LTF gene polymorphisms and different caries status in primary dentition. PMID:29989276 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. (2020) | 1 | 0.05 |