| Title |
A common genetic variation in CEBPE and acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a meta-analysis of the available evidence
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s89661 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao-Xia Zhang, Yue-Feng Du, Ya-Jing Zhai, Fan Gao, Yu-Juan Yang, Xian-Cang Ma, Jun Lu, Jie Zheng |
| Abstract |
Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has been studied intensively for decades, but the details of its etiology and underlying mechanisms have yet to be fully elucidated. It is now generally acknowledged that genetic factors contribute greatly to the development of this disease. The gene encoding CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein ε (CEBPE) is involved in the development of leukemia, and in particular the rs2239633 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) of CEBPE. The association between rs2239633 and risk of ALL has been well studied, but remains unclear. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed in this study to establish a more precise estimation of that relationship. A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed electronic database was conducted, and relevant studies published up to February 20, 2015 were selected for analysis. The references of the retrieved articles were also screened. The extracted data were analyzed statistically, and pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Review Manager (version 5.2) to estimate the association strength. Finally, eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analyses revealed that rs2239633 was associated with an increased risk of childhood ALL in Caucasians under any contrast models (P<0.01). However, this SNP did not affect the risk of ALL in adulthood among Caucasians, or in childhood among East Asians. In conclusion, these findings confirm that the CEBPE rs2239633 SNP could be considered a good marker of pediatric ALL risk in Caucasians, but not in East Asians; it is not a good marker of adult ALL risk in Caucasians. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,472
of 276,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#61
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,785 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.