| Title |
Association between FTO gene polymorphism and cancer risk: evidence from 16,277 cases and 31,153 controls
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tumor Biology, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13277-012-0372-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guiqiong Li, Qingwei Chen, Li Wang, Dazhi Ke, Zhongming Yuan |
| Abstract |
A recent genome-wide association study showed that the rs9939609 polymorphism in the fat mass and obesity-associated (FTO) gene was associated with body mass index (BMI)/obesity in Europeans. Subsequently, several studies have investigated the association between FTO polymorphism and cancer risk. However, the results have been inconsistent. In this study, a meta-analysis was performed to clarify the association between FTO polymorphism and cancer risk. Published literature from PubMed and Embase databases were retrieved. Pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated using fixed-effects model. A total of 13 studies involving 16,277 cases and 31,153 controls were identified. The results suggested that FTO rs9939609 polymorphism was not significantly associated with the increased risk of cancer (OR = 1.01, 95 %CI 0.98-1.04), with the exception that a statistically significant association was found for pancreatic cancer (OR = 1.10, 95 %CI 1.03-1.19). No publication bias was detected (Begg's test: P = 0.760; Egger's test: P = 0.553). Our meta-analysis indicated that there was no association between FTO rs9939609 polymorphism and the increased risk of cancer, although this polymorphism was marginally associated with pancreatic cancer. However, the conclusion should be made with caution since most included studies did not take BMI/obesity into account. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 21% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 25% |
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 10 March 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,470
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Tumor Biology
#1,367
of 2,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,062
of 156,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tumor Biology
#13
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,620 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 156,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.