Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Jun 26;40(6):BSR20200321.
doi: 10.1042/BSR20200321.

Complement receptor 1 genetic polymorphism contributes to sporadic Alzheimer's disease susceptibility in Caucasians: a meta-analysis

Hai Yuan  1 , Lingling Du  1 , Pingping Ge  1
Affiliations
Review

Complement receptor 1 genetic polymorphism contributes to sporadic Alzheimer's disease susceptibility in Caucasians: a meta-analysis

Hai Yuan et al. Biosci Rep. .

Abstract

Complement receptor 1 (CR1) plays an important role in the development of sporadic Alzheimer's disease (SAD) in Caucasians. However, the influence of CR1 (rs6656401A/G and rs3818361T/C) genetic polymorphisms on the risk of SAD remains controversial. A meta-analysis of 18 case-control studies was performed to derive a more precise association of CR1 (rs6656401A/G or rs3818361T/C) genetic polymorphism with the risk of SAD in Caucasians. A statistical difference was found in the dominant model (odds ratio (OR): 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-1.30, P=0.00), recessive model (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.05-1.56, P=0.02), homozygote comparison (OR: 1.36, 95% CI: 1.12-1.66, P=0.002) or heterozygote comparison (AG versus GG) (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.15-1.29, P=0.00) of CR1 rs6656401A/G. For CR1 rs3818361T/C, a statistical difference was observed in the dominant model (OR: 1.21, 95% CI: 1.13-1.31, P=0.00), recessive model (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.53, P=0.006), homozygote comparison (OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.13-1.62, P=0.001) or heterozygote comparison (TC versus CC) (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.11-1.29, P=0.00). In summary, despite some limitations, the present meta-analysis indicated that rs6656401A/G or rs3818361T/C polymorphism was related to SAD risk. Moreover, a carrier of rs6656401A/G or T carrier of rs3818361T/C in CR1 genetic polymorphism might be an increased factor for SAD in Caucasians.

Keywords: Alzheimer's disease; complement receptor 1; gene; meta-analysis; polymorphism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no competing interests associated with the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. The PRISMA checklist of literature search and study selection
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plot for rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism ((AA+AG) versus GG) and SAD susceptibility
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plot for rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism (AA versus (AG+GG)) and SAD susceptibility
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plot for rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism (AA versus GG) and SAD susceptibility
Figure 5
Figure 5. Forest plot for rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism (AG versus GG) and SAD susceptibility
Figure 6
Figure 6. Sensitivity analysis for the relation of rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism with SAD susceptibility
(A) (AA+AG) versus GG, (B) AA versus (AG+GG), (C) AA versus GG, (D) AA versus AG, (E) AG versus GG.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Sensitivity analysis for the relation of rs3818361T/C genetic polymorphism with SAD susceptibility
(A) (TT+TC) versus CC, (B) TT versus (TC+CC), (C) TT versus CC, (D) TT versus TC, (E) TC versus CC.
Figure 8
Figure 8. Begg’s funnel plot for analysis models in CR1 rs6656401A/G genetic polymorphism
(A) (AA+AG) versus GG, (B) AA versus (AG+GG), (C) AA versus GG, (D) AA versus AG, (E) AG versus GG.
Figure 9
Figure 9. Begg’s funnel plot for analysis models in CR1 rs3818361T/C genetic polymorphism
(A) (TT+TC) versus CC, (B) TT versus (TC+CC), (C) TT versus CC, (D) TT versus TC, (E) TC versus CC.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Mucke L. (2009) Neuroscience: Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 461, 895–897 10.1038/461895a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kadmiri N., Said N., Slassi I. et al. . (2017) Biomarkers for Alzheimer disease: classical and novel candidates’ review. Neuroscience 370, 181–190 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.017 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kang S., Lee Y.H. and Lee J.E. (2017) Metabolism-centric overview of the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Yonsei Med. J. 58, 479–488 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.3.479 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Heneka M.T., Carson M.J., Khoury J.E. et al. . (2015) Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 14, 388–405 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)70016-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hammond T.R., Marsh S.E. and Stevens B. (2019) Immune signaling in neurodegeneration. Immunity 50, 955–974 10.1016/j.immuni.2019.03.016 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Substances