| Title |
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Correlations of SELE genetic polymorphisms with risk of coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Molecular Biology Reports, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11033-014-3161-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhao-Qiang Dong, Xiang-Jun Wu, Qing-Hua Lu |
| Abstract |
This meta-analysis of case-control studies was conducted to determine whether SELE genetic polymorphisms contribute to the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease (CHD) and myocardial infarction (MI). The PubMed, CISCOM, CINAHL, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and CBM databases were searched for relevant articles published before November 1st, 2013 without any language restrictions. Meta-analysis was conducted using the STATA 12.0 software. Twenty case-control studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 2,292 CHD patients, 901 MI patients and 3,233 healthy controls. Six common polymorphisms in the SELE gene were evaluated, including 554L/F, 98G/T, 128S/R, 2692G/A, 1901C/T, and 1856A/G. The results of our meta-analysis suggest that SELE genetic polymorphisms might be strongly correlated with an increased risk of CHD (allele model: OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.67-2.58, P<0.001; dominant model: OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.68-2.68, P<0.001; respectively), especially the SELE 554L/F, 98G/T and 128S/R polymorphisms. Furthermore, our findings indicated that SELE genetic polymorphisms were closely linked to the risk of CHD in Asians but not Caucasians. However, our findings reveal no positive correlations between SELE genetic polymorphisms and MI risk (allele model: OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.94, P=0.054; dominant model: OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.96-2.04, P=0.081; respectively). The current meta-analysis suggests that SELE genetic polymorphisms may contribute to an increased risk of CHD, especially the SELE 554L/F, 98G/T and 128S/R polymorphisms in Asians. However, SELE genetic polymorphisms may not be important determinants of susceptibility to MI. |
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 | 3 | 21% |
| Librarian | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 50% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,689,267
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Biology Reports
#206
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,572
of 306,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Biology Reports
#10
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 306,199 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.