SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Genet., 27 June 2022

Sec. Genetics of Common and Rare Diseases

Volume 13 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2022.887415

Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk

  • 1. Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, China

  • 2. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Guangxi Academy of Medical Sciences and the People’s Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning, China

  • 3. Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, China

  • 4. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China

  • 5. Institute of Evidence-Based Medicine, Heping Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, China

Abstract

Background: Numerous studies reported the associations between endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) polymorphisms (4b/a VNTR (rs869109213), G894T (rs1799983) and T786C (rs2070744)) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) risk. However, the conclusions were incongruent. Moreover, since no published meta-analyses were performed, a key issue regarding false-positive results needs to be addressed. Furthermore, four new articles have been published on these issues. Therefore, an updated meta-analysis was conducted to further explore these associations.

Objectives: To investigate the association between eNOS 4b/a, G894T and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk.

Methods: Studies were searched by using the PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, Embase, International Statistical Institute (ISI) and the China Wanfang databases. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to evaluate the associations using five genetic models. Furthermore, the false-positive report probability (FPRP), Bayesian false discovery probability (BFDP), and the Venice criteria were employed to assess the credibility of statistically significant associations.

Results: Overall, the eNOS 4b/a polymorphism was associated with a significantly decreased T2DM risk in Asians (bb vs. aa: OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23–0.84; ab + bb vs. aa: OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24–0.86; bb vs. aa + ab: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.91; b vs. a: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57–0.88); the eNOS G894T polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Asians (GT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; T vs. G: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.76); the eNOS T786C polymorphism was associated with a significantly increased T2DM risk in Indian (TC vs. TT: OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.27–2.94; TC + CC vs. TT: OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.26–3.36; C vs. T: OR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.17–3.08). However, when a sensitivity analysis was performed after excluding low quality and Hardy–Weinberg Disequilibrium (HWD) studies, no significant association was found for the eNOS G894T polymorphism. After credibility assessment, we identified “less-credible positive results” for the statistically significant associations in the current meta-analysis.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this article suggests that all substantial relationships between eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk are most likely due to false positive results rather than real connections or biological variables.

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), which is defined by chronic hyperglycemia caused by insulin resistance as well as multiple related micro-vascular and macro-vascular complications, is one of the most common chronic illnesses at home and abroad. Over the last 3 decades, the global prevalence of diabetes mellitus has more than quadrupled, making it one of the most serious global health issues (Moore et al., 2009). At the same time, it is reported that the incidence of T2DM is increasing at an alarming rate. Diabetes is anticipated to impact 702 million people by 2045, which means one in every eleven people will be affected, and huge amounts of money will be required globally to cure diabetes and manage its complications (https://diabetesatlas.org/en/). However, the pathogenesis of T2DM remains unclear and may be related to diet and exercise, obesity, geography, genetic susceptibility, environment, etc. Furthermore, there is abundant evidence that genetic predisposition plays a significant role in the etiology of T2DM (Ferland-McCollough et al., 2010). It has been reported that there is an important genetic predisposition for T2DM (Papazafiropoulou et al., 2017). At the same time, over 100 T2DM risk loci have been identified to date, although the molecular pathways of risk genes are unclear (Gaulton, 2017). In conclusion, genetic factors play an essential impact in the occurrence and development of T2DM.

Nitric oxide (NO) is a ubiquitous vasoactive substance, whose main function is to protect vascular endothelial cells from damage (Larsen et al., 2012). Endothelial dysfunction due to reduce in NO levels is an important mechanism for the development of T2DM. One of the essential enzymes in the process of NO generation is endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), which is encoded by the eNOS gene on chromosome 7q35-7q36 (Jamwal and Sharma, 2018). It has been observed that eNOS malfunction can cause a nitric oxide production problem, which can contribute to the development of characteristic T2DM aberrant metabolic phenotypes such as reduced glucose tolerance and insulin resistance (Li et al., 2002; Tsutsui et al., 2006). Therefore, eNOS polymorphisms may biologically be an ideal genetic marker for T2DM in biology.

Many eNOS gene polymorphisms have been identified in recent years, of which 4b/a, G894T, and T786C are the most investigated polymorphisms in T2DM (Wang et al., 1997; Veldman et al., 2002), although their associations remain controversial and equivocal. Several relevant meta-analyses have been performed to evaluate the correlations of T2DM with eNOS gene polymorphisms (Jia et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2018), with conflicting results. And previously published meta-analyses did not evaluate the quality of the literature, nor did they evaluate the positive results to identify multiple comparisons. As a result, an updated meta-analysis was conducted to further investigate the possible association between eNOS genetic variants (4b/a, G894T, and T786C) and T2DM risk. This analysis included more papers and credible findings than previous meta-analyses (Jia et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2018).

Materials and Methods

Search Strategy

The current study was performed according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) group (Moher et al., 2009). The literature was searched using PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Medline, Embase, ISI (International Statistical Institute) and the China Wanfang databases. The following search strategies were applied: (eNOS OR endothelial nitric oxide synthase OR nitric oxide synthase type III OR NOS3) AND (polymorphism OR variant OR mutation OR genotype OR allele) AND (diabetes OR mellitus OR diabetes mellitus OR DM). The literature search was updated to 15 March 2022. Furthermore, the reference lists of previously published meta-analyses were carefully reviewed to identify additional eligible studies (Jia et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2017; Dong et al., 2018).

Selection Criteria

Inclusion criteria were as listed below: 1) case-control or cohort studies; 2) described the association between the eNOS 4b/a, G894T and T786C polymorphisms and risk of T2DM; 3) provided sufficient genotype data or the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) in the selected literature. Exclusion criteria were as listed below: 1) duplicate genotype data; 2) studies with no available data; 3) meta-analyses of case reports, abstracts, reviews and letters.

Data Extraction and Quality Score Assessment

Two investigators independently extracted the data and cross-examined it, trying to resolve differences through discussion. If no consensus was reached after discussion, the third author would be invited to extract the data again for final review and confirmation. Moreover, the original authors could be contacted via e-mail if necessary. Races were divided into “Caucasians,” “Asians,” “Indians,” and “Africans.” “Mixed populations” was defined if race was not stated or the sample size of several races cannot be separated in original study.

The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) (Wells et al., 2014) was applied by the two investigators to independently assess the quality of all included research. These scales are influenced by three factors: selection (four points), comparability (two points), and exposure (three points). Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) was employed to conduct a quality assessment on the basis of NOS (one point). The overall score varied from zero (worst) to ten (highest), with seven points or more as high quality.

Trial Sequential Analysis

Meta-analyses could increase the power and accuracy of evaluating intervention effects and are regarded as good evidence when available studies are used. However, misleading conclusions may be generated owing to random mistakes if the sample size is very small. Therefore, TSA was carried out to decrease random mistakes and predict the required information size (RIS) in this study (Brok et al., 2008; Thorlund et al., 2011). TSA was performed with the help of TSA 0.9 software (Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, Copenhagen). The random effect model was used in this work. Alpha (type I error) and beta (type II error) were given as 0.05 and 0.2, respectively. The accruing information size (AIS) was used to determine information size, and the OR value was used to determine the combined effect amount. Based on O'Brien-Fleming-spending functions, a TSA employs trial sequential monitoring boundaries. In addition, the relative risk reduction (RRR) is set at 15% (Kulinskaya and Wood, 2014). If the cumulative Z-curve passes the monitoring border, the RIS line, or enters the futility region, strong evidence for our study may well be affirmed. Otherwise, additional research is required (Wetterslev et al., 2009).

Statistical Analysis

Potential associations between the eNOS genetic polymorphisms (4b/a VNTR, G894T and T786C) and T2DM risk were expressed by ORs and corresponding 95% CIs. Five genetic models were used for comparison: hybrid, homozygous, dominant, recessive and allele model. Chi-square-based Q-test and I2 value were employed in assessing the Heterogeneity. When P was less than 0.10 and/or I2 was greater than 50% (Li et al., 2005), the random-effects model (Mantel and Haenszel, 1959) was adopted because of the significant heterogeneity. On the contrary, the fixed-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird, 2015) was adopted. In addition, the source of heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression analysis. Subgroups were conducted by race, type of control, age and gender. Three methods were applied for sensitivity analyses: 1) excluded one study in turn; 2) eliminated low-quality and medium-quality or Hardy–Weinberg Disequilibrium (HWD) studies; 3) kept only high-quality and HWE studies. Furthermore, HWE was assessed using the Chi-square goodness-of-fit test. p > 0.05 was defined as HWE, otherwise as HWD in the control group. Begg’s funnel plot (Begg and Mazumdar, 1994) and Egger’s test (Egger et al., 1997) were applied to evaluate publication bias. If there were publication bias, the number of missing studies would be estimated and supplemented using a nonparametric “trim and fill” method (Dual and Tweedie, 2000). The false-positive report probability (FPRP) (Wacholder et al., 2004), Bayesian False Discovery Probability (BFDP) (Wakefield, 2007), and the Venice criteria (Ioannidis et al., 2008) were used to evaluate the credibility of statistically significant associations. Stata 12.0 software (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX) was applied to calculate all statistical analyses.

Results

Study Characteristics

Initially, 984 articles were retrieved from PubMed, CNKI, Medline, Embase, ISI and the China Wan-fang databases. We excluded 321 papers by carefully evaluating titles and abstracts. Moreover, 16 were excluded due to duplication and invalidation of data, and 19 were excluded due to inadequate controls. Finally, 66 articles with 68 studies were eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis (Table 1). The detailed investigation process is shown in Figure 1. A total of 68 studies (Figure 1) met our inclusion criteria (involving 15,988 T2DM cases and 25,452 controls), of which 36 studies reported the eNOS 4b/a (8,553 cases and 6,613 controls), 44 studies investigated the eNOS G894T (10,722 cases and 21,256 controls), and 13 studies reported the eNOS T786C (4,676 cases and 3,842 controls), as shown in Tables 24. Furthermore, twenty, thirty-seven, six, two and three studies were conducted to investigate Caucasians, Asians, Indians, Africans, and mixed groups, respectively. In addition, the eNOS 4b/a had 19 high-quality studies and 17 low-quality studies, the eNOS G894T had 18 high-quality studies and 26 low-quality studies, and the eNOS T786C had five high-quality studies and eight low-quality studies. Moreover, the complete features, scores, HWE and the genotype frequencies of the selected literature were shown in Tables 24. Furthermore, Table 5 showed the results of the detailed quality scores for the included articles according to the NOS.

TABLE 1

First author/YearCountryEligible Research Studies of 4b/aEligible Research Studies of G894TEligible Research Studies of T786C
This StudyDong et al. (2018)Zhang et al. (2017)Jia et al. (2013)This StudyDong et al. (2018)Jia et al. (2013)This StudyDong et al. (2018)
Wang et al. (1999)JapanAA
Pulkkinen et al. (2000)FinlandCCCCCC
Suzuki et al. (2000)JapanAA (NOT)
Neugebauer et al. (2000)JapanAAEA
Ukkola et al. (2001)FinlandCCC
Li et al. (2001)ChinaAAAAAAA
Asakimori et al. (2001)JapanAA
Ohtoshi et al. (2002)JapanAAAA
Noiri et al. (2002)JapanAA
Lin et al. (2002)ChinaAAAEA
Huang et al. (2002)ChinaAA
Monti et al. (2003)ItalyCCC
Ksiazek et al. 2003PolandCC(NOT)
Lee et al. (2003)TaiwanAAA
Luo and Ning, (2003)ChinaAA (NOT)A (NOT)
Nagase et al. (2003)JapanA
Zhang et al. (2003)ChinaAA
Ren et al. (2003)ChinaAA
Ma (2003)ChinaA
Sun et al. (2004)ChinaAA (NOT)EAA
Shin Shin et al. (2004)KoreaAAA
Dong et al., 2005ChinaAA
Zhang et al., 2005ChinaAA
Wang, (2005)ChinaA
Sandrim et al., 2006BrazilMCCMCCMC
de Syllos et al., 2006BrazilMCCMCCMC
Zheng-ju et al. (2006)ChinaA
Luo et al., 2006ChinaAA
Wu et al., 2007ChinaAA
Fu et al., 2007ChinaAA
Ma et al., 2007ChinaAA
Ezzidi et al., 2008TunisiaAfCAfAfCAfAfC
Ritt et al., 2008GermanyCCC
Thaha et al., 2008JapanAA
Odeberg et al., 2008SwedenCCC
Galanakis et al., 2008GreeceCC(NA)C
Szabó et al., 2009HungaryCC
Kincl et al., 2009Czech RepublicCC
Deng et al., 2009ChinaAA (NOT)AA (NOT)
Yu et al., 2009ChinaAA
Kim et al., 2010KoreaAAAAAA
Corapcioglu et al., 2010TurkeyCC
Bae et al., 2010KoreaAAAAAAAA
Li et al., 2010ChinaAA (NOT)
Mehrab-Mohseni et al. (2011)IranCA
El-Din Bessa and Hamdy, (2011)EgyptCC
Angeline et al., 2011IndiaC(NOT)A
Santos et al., 2011BrazilMCCMCCMC
Guo and Liu, (2012)ChinaA
Li et al., 2011ChinaA
Hou et al., 2012ChinaAA
Dai and Zhang, (2012)ChinaA
Bressler et al., 2013AmericaCC
Rahimi et al., 2013IranCA
Jamil et al., 2014IndiaA
Mackawy et al., 2014Saudi ArabiaCC
Li et al., 2015ChinaAAAA
Haldar et al., 2015IndiaA
She et al., 2015ChinaAA
Momeni et al., 2016IranC
Moguib et al., 2017EgyptCC
Rizvi et al., 2019India
Yigit et al., 2020TurkeyC
Abdullah et al. (2021)JordanCCC
Raina et al., 2021India
Gusti et al., 2021Saudi ArabiaC

Included studies of eNOS polymorphism in T2DM within the meta-analyses.

A, asian; I, indian; Af, African; E, european; C, caucasian; Ar: Arabs; M, mixed; U, unidentified; EA: East Asian; SA: South-Asian; WA:West-Asian; HWE YES:p > 0.05; NOT:p < 0.05; NA:not available.

FIGURE 1

TABLE 2

First author/YearEthnicitySample SizeMatchingType of ControlCaseControlHWE (P)Quality Score
aaabbbaaabbb
Wang et al. (1999)Asian71/248Age and sexHealthy controls013580472010.0998
Pulkkinen et al. (2000)Caucasian251/110NRNon-diabetic controls1185155526790.1529
Neugebauer et al. (2000)Asian215/155Age and sexHealthy controls7361720221330.3427
Li et al. (2001)Asian143/85Age and sexHealthy controls040103122620.5358
Asakimori et al. (2001)Asian295/189Age and sexNon-diabetic controls3672250261630.317
Huang et al. (2002)Asian85/68Age and sexNon-diabetic controls3166607610.6557
Lin et al. (2002)Asian127/70NRHealthy controls11411206640.7804
Ksiazek et al. (2003)Caucasian410/330Age and sexHealthy controls341242524742520.5808
Lee et al. (2003)Asian800/398Age and sexHealthy controls141126741573400.3868
Luo and Ning, (2003)Asian84/37AgeHealthy controls3564321340.0006
Zhang et al., 2003Asian132/80Age and sexHealthy controls219111012680.4688
Ma, (2003)Asian299/100Age and sexHealthy controls364232018820.3238
Sun et al., 2004Asian399/113Age and sexHealthy controls622311218930.3208
Dong et al., 2005Asian134/85Age and sexHealthy controls03896022620.1676
Zhang et al., 2005Asian322/166Age and sexHealthy controls2422781201450.7348
Wang. (2005)Asian204/100Age and sexHealthy controls049155013870.4879
Sandrim et al. (2006)Mixed66/102Age and sexHealthy controls21648419790.0567
de Syllos et al. (2006)Mixed170/103Age and sexHealthy controls543122420790.0797
Wu et al. (2007)Asian80/119Age and sexHealthy controls01367023860.2189
Ezzidi et al. (2008)African917/748Age and sexHealthy controls50305548202175110.5947
Galanakis et al. (2008)Caucasian108/160NRHealthy controls529741391200.2505
Kincl et al. (2009)Caucasian348/813NRNon-diabetic controls12107229322285530.1695
Deng et al. (2009)Asian108/100Age and sexHealthy controls31986916750.0007
Yu et al. (2009)Asian76/100NRNon-diabetic controls21064112870.4336
Kim et al. (2010)Asian36/170Age and sexNon-diabetic controls012240261440.2806
Bae et al. (2010)Asian89/299Age and sexNon-diabetic controls226610512480.1078
Li et al. (2010)Asian166/85Age and sexNon-diabetic controls1224130314680.0578
Mehrab-Mohseni et al. (2011)Caucasian220/96Age and sexHealthy controls954157016800.3739
Santos et al. (2011)Mixed617/100Age and sexHealthy controls16158405330670.8719
Guo and Liu, (2012)Asian144/63Age and sexHealthy controls9712621600.0006
Rahimi et al. (2013)Caucasian173/101AgeHealthy controls346124028730.1068
She et al. (2015)Asian278/223Age and sexNon-diabetic controls1602171241980.7688
Yigit et al. (2020)Caucasian85/282Age and sexNon-diabetic controls21271111151560.0688
Abdullah et al. (2021)Caucasian103/100Age and sexHealthy controls33169327700.8406
Raina et al. (2021)Indian461/315Age and sexHealthy controls171373076952140.2178
Raina et al. (2021)Indian337/200Age and sexHealthy controls121102155301450.0367

Genotype distribution of eNOS 4b/a polymorphisms in the included studies of T2DM.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase; NR, not reported; NA, not available.

TABLE 3

First author/YearEthnicitySample SizeMatchingType of ControlCaseControlHWE (P)Quality Score
GGGTTTGGGTTT
Pulkkinen et al. (2000)Caucasian251/110NRNon-diabetic controls13697185445110.7209
Suzuki et al. (2000)Asian48/270Age and sexHealthy controls38822501820.0167
Ukkola et al., 2001Caucasian216/222Age and sexHealthy controls106931711292180.8837
Li et al., 2001Asian143/85Age and sexHealthy controls93491632110.6068
Ohtoshi et al., 2002Asian301/233Age and sexHealthy controls2564231963520.7537
Noiri et al., 2002Asian72/304Age and sexHealthy controls492302515300.0967
Monti et al., 2003Caucasian159/207NRHealthy controls5263448682290.1996
Nagase et al., 2003Asian71/248Age and sexHealthy controls38822501820.0167
Ren et al., 2003Asian211/83Age and sexHealthy controls159283671500.1888
Shin Shin et al. (2004)Asian177/129Age and sexNon-diabetic controls1473001161300.5479
Dong et al. 2005Asian134/85Age and sexHealthy controls88451632110.6066
Sandrim et al. 2006Mixed66/102Age and sexHealthy controls34284534540.1387
de Syllos et al. 2006Mixed170/103Age and sexHealthy controls827810544540.1467
Zheng-ju et al. (2006)Asian136/61Age and sexHealthy controls95410491200.3945
Luo et al., 2006Asian80/119Age and sexHealthy controls63170981920.3519
Fu et al., 2007Asian139/63Age and sexHealthy controls97420511200.4038
Ma et al., 2007Asian299/100Age and sexHealthy controls240590861400.4528
Ezzidi et al., 2008African917/748Age and sexHealthy controls350442122335334690.2747
Ritt et al., 2008Caucasian84/84Age and sexNon-diabetic controls37470384600.0018
Thaha et al., 2008Asian39/100Age and sexHealthy controls7311722620.8457
Odeberg et al., 2008Caucasian403/799Age and sexNon-diabetic controls22215328407322700.5809
Szabó et al., 2009Caucasian209/384SexHealthy controls879230201161220.1626
Deng et al., 2009Asian108/100Age and sexHealthy controls83205801460.0007
Kim et al., 2010Asian36/170Age and sexNon-diabetic controls33301353500.1356
Corapcioglu et al., 2010Caucasian97/102Age and sexHealthy controls464654842120.5498
Bae et al., 2010Asian89/299Age and sexNon-diabetic controls751402455310.2908
El-Din Bessa and Hamdy, (2011)Caucasian80/20Age and sexHealthy controls27371612710.9877
Angeline et al., 2011Indian100/160Age and sexNon-diabetic controls2555201134700.0297
Santos et al., 2011Mixed617/100Age and sexHealthy controls29426154474850.0989
Li et al., 2011Asian326/215Age and sexHealthy controls2586711713310.6598
Hou et al., 2012Asian100/50Age and sexHealthy controls1263251225130.9986
Dai and Zhang, (2012)Asian120/60Age and sexHealthy controls75450431700.2016
Bressler et al., 2013Caucasian980/9,657Age and sexNon-diabetic controls4504261044,5064,1819700.9988
Bressler et al., 2013African728/3,009Age and sexNon-diabetic controls58013992,338626450.6768
Jamil et al., 2014Indian196/190Age and sexHealthy controls1098801622800.2737
Mackawy et al., 2014Caucasian80/40Age and sexNon-diabetic controls313217191650.5767
Li et al., 2015Asian1,234/1,272Age and sexHealthy controls1,024189397825790.0747
Momeni et al., 2016Caucasian94/94Age and sexNon-diabetic controls333581022620.0026
Moguib et al., 2017Caucasian200/100Age and sexHealthy controls1226414465220.0046
Rizvi et al., 2019Indian200/200Age and sexHealthy controls133571013254140.0156
Abdullah et al. (2021)Caucasian103/100Age and sexHealthy controls593594940110.5166
Raina et al., 2021Indian461/315Age and sexHealthy controls289159132149650.1158
Raina et al., 2021Indian337/200Age and sexHealthy controls192133121375850.6968
Gusti et al., 2021Caucasian111/164Age and sexNon-diabetic controls633991075160.9808

Genotype distribution of eNOS G894T polymorphisms in the included studies of T2DM.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase; NR, not reported; NA, not available.

TABLE 4

First author/YearEthnicitySample SizeMatchingType of ControlCaseControlHWE (P)Quality Score
TTTCCCTTTCCC
Ohtoshi et al., 2002Asian301/233Age and sexHealthy controls2504831943540.1157
Sandrim et al., 2006Mixed66/102Age and sexHealthy controls342843852120.3617
de Syllos et al., 2006Mixed170/103Age and sexHealthy controls7778153853120.3147
Ezzidi et al., 2008African917/748Age and sexHealthy controls48535466436264360.6237
Kim et al., 2010Asian36/170Age and sexNon-diabetic controls261001452500.3016
Bae et al., 2010Asian89/299Age and sexNon-diabetic controls632422504900.1238
Santos et al., 2011Mixed617/100Age and sexHealthy controls2332641204246120.9139
Li et al., 2015Asian1,234/1,272Age and sexHealthy controls91626820960264160.6537
Haldar et al., 2015Indian145/100Age and sexHealthy controls805015841420.1468
Moguib et al., 2017Caucasian200/100Age and sexHealthy controls481520336700.0006
Abdullah et al. (2021)Caucasian103/100Age and sexHealthy controls4545134142170.2776
Raina et al., 2021Indian461/315Age and sexHealthy controls273177112209050.2158
Raina et al., 2021Indian337/200Age and sexHealthy controls210116111455050.7828

Genotype distribution of eNOS T786C polymorphisms in the included studies of T2DM.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase; NR, not reported; NA, not available.

TABLE 5

First Author/YearSelectionComparabilityExposureHWE (p)Quality Score (Total score)
Adequate Definition of CaseRepresentativeness of the CasesSelection of ControlsDefinition of ControlsAge and SexAny Additional FactorAscertainment of ExposureSame Method of Ascertainment for Cases and ControlsNon-Response Rate
Wang et al. (1999)01111111018
Pulkkinen et al. (2000)11110111119
Suzuki et al. (2000)01111111007
Neugebauer et al. (2000)01011111017
Ukkola et al. 200101111011017
Li et al. 200111011111018
Asakimori et al., 200101011111017
Ohtoshi et al. 200211011011017
Noiri et al. 200201011111017
Lin et al. 200211011011017
Huang et al. 200201010001014
Monti et al. 200301110011016
Ksiazek et al. 200311111011018
Lee et al., 200311011111018
Luo and Ning, (2003)11011011006
Nagase et al. 200301111111007
Zhang et al. 200311111011018
Ren et al. 200311011111018
Ma, (2003)11011111018
Sun et al., 200411111011018
Shin Shin et al. (2004)11111111019
Dong et al. 200501011011016
Zhang et al. 200511111011018
Wang (2005)11111111019
Sandrim et al. 200601111011017
de Syllos et al. 200601111011017
Zheng-ju et al. (2006)01011001015
Luo et al., 200611111111019
Wu et al., 200711111111019
Fu et al., 200711011111018
Ma et al., 200711011111018
Ezzidi et al., 200801011111017
Ritt et al., 200811111111008
Thaha et al., 200801011111017
Odeberg et al., 200811111111019
Galanakis et al., 200801010011015
Szabó et al., 200901011011016
Kincl et al., 200901010011015
Deng et al., 200911011111007
Yu et al., 200911010011016
Kim et al., 201001011011016
Corapcioglu et al., 201011011111018
Bae et al., 201011111011018
Li et al., 201011011111018
Mehrab-Mohseni et al. (2011)11111111019
El-Din Bessa and Hamdy, (2011)11011011017
Angeline et al., 201111111011007
Santos et al., 201111111111019
Guo and Liu, (2012)11011011006
Li et al., 201111011111018
Hou et al., 201201011011016
Dai and Zhang, (2012)01011011016
Bressler et al., 201301111111018
Rahimi et al., 201311011111018
Jamil et al., 201401011111017
Mackawy et al., 201411011011017
Li et al., 201511011011017
Haldar et al., 201511011111018
She et al., 201501111111018
Momeni et al., 201611011011006
Moguib et al., 201701111011006
Rizvi et al., 201911011011006
Yigit et al., 202011011111018
Abdullah et al. (2021)01011011016
Raina et al., 202111111011018
Gusti et al., 202101011111018

Quality assessment of included studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for assessing the quality of case control studies.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Quantitative Synthes

In the total analysis, the eNOS 4b/4a was associated with a substantially lower T2DM risk (ab vs. aa: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.52–0.96; bb vs. aa: OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.38–0.79; ab + bb vs. aa: OR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.40–0.82; bb vs. aa + ab: OR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.66–0.89; b vs. a: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.65–0.87, Table 6; Figure 2). In the following ethnic subgroup analysis, we discovered a significant association between eNOS 4b/4a polymorphism and T2DM susceptibility in the Asian population (bb vs. aa: OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.23–0.84; ab + bb vs. aa: OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.24–0.86; bb vs. aa + ab: OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.59–0.91; b vs. a: OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.57–0.88, Table 6; Figure 2). Also, similar association was also found in the healthy control and matched studies (Table 6).

TABLE 6

Variablen (Cases/Controls)ab vs. aabb vs. aaab + bb vs. aabb vs. aa + abb vs. a
Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)
Overall36 (8,553/6,613)0.71 (0.52–0.96)0.265/12.80.55 (0.38–0.79)0.011/40.70.58 (0.40–0.82)0.024/36.30.77 (0.66–0.89)<0.001/66.40.76 (0.65–0.87)<0.001/70.2
Ethnicity
 Asian22 (4,287/3,053)0.62 (0.35–1.09)0.529/0.00.44 (0.23–0.84)0.079/34.80.45 (0.24–0.86)0.103/31.70.73 (0.59–0.91)<0.001/59.20.71 (0.57–0.88)<0.001/66.5
 Caucasian8 (1,698/1992)0.58 (0.28–1.21)0.056/49.00.51 (0.21–1.24)0.004/66.80.53 (0.23–1.22)0.009/62.60.86 (0.58–1.27)<0.001/82.50.83 (0.58–1.19)<0.001/84.2
Type of control
 Healthy controls26 (6,844/4,274)0.66 (0.440.98)0.195/20.10.50 (0.320.78)0.016/43.50.52 (0.340.82)0.024/41.00.79 (0.670.93)<0.001/56.70.77 (0.660.91)<0.001/66.3
 Non-diabetic controls10 (1709/2,339)0.92 (0.57–1.49)0.589/0.00.78 (0.45–1.36)0.318/14.00.86 (0.54–1.36)0.440/0.00.70 (0.47–1.04)<0.001/80.60.70 (0.500.99)<0.001/79.4
Matching
 Age and sex28 (6,902/5,154)0.67 (0.460.97)0.226/17.40.59 (0.390.91)0.037/37.60.62 (0.420.91)0.082/30.70.80 (0.670.95)<0.001/69.50.79 (0.670.93)<0.001/70.3
 NR6 (995/1,321)1.02 (0.59–1.77)0.439/0.00.75 (0.41–1.38)0.364/8.10.81 (0.44–1.47)0.361/8.60.78 (0.640.96)0.550/0.00.77 (0.630.96)0.306/16.7
Sensitivity analysis
HWE
  Overall32 (7,880/6,213)0.64 (0.48–0.85)0.423/2.70.55 (0.38–0.80)0.092/27.70.58 (0.41–0.81)0.167/20.80.80 (0.69–0.93)<0.001/62.20.79 (0.69–0.90)<0.001/63.7
 Ethnicity
  Asian19 (3,951/2,853)0.43 (0.22–0.82)0.874/0.00.43 (0.23–0.80)0.713/0.00.43 (0.230.81)0.761/0.00.75 (0.62–0.93)0.005/51.30.74 (0.62–0.89)0.009/48.8
  Caucasian8 (1,698/1992)0.58 (0.28–1.21)0.056/49.00.51 (0.21–1.24)0.004/66.80.53 (0.23–1.22)0.009/62.60.86 (0.58–1.27)<0.001/82.50.83 (0.58–1.19)<0.001/84.2
 Type of control
  Healthy controls22 (6,170/3,874)0.54 (0.380.75)0.460/0.00.48 (0.310.74)0.174/23.70.50 (0.330.75)0.232/18.50.83 (0.720.96)0.027/40.40.81 (0.710.93)0.004/49.9
  Non-diabetic controls10 (1709/2,339)0.92 (0.57–1.49)0.589/0.00.78 (0.45–1.36)0.318/14.00.86 (0.54–1.36)0.440/0.00.70 (0.47–1.04)<0.001/80.60.70 (0.500.99)<0.001/79.4
 Matching
  Age and sex25 (6,313/4,791)0.55 (0.400.76)0.545/0.00.53 (0.340.83)0.089/31.40.54 (0.360.81)0.192/21.20.81 (0.680.98)<0.001/69.00.80 (0.680.94)<0.001/69.5
  NR6 (995/1,321)1.02 (0.59–1.77)0.439/0.00.75 (0.41–1.38)0.364/8.10.81 (0.44–1.47)0.361/8.60.78 (0.640.96)0.550/0.00.77 (0.630.96)0.306/16.7
Quality score >7
  Overall19 (5,200/3,350)0.52 (0.34–0.79)0.462/0.00.53 (0.30–0.92)0.075/36.10.53 (0.32–0.88)0.158/26.40.88 (0.69–1.11)<0.001/74.30.85 (0.68–1.05)<0.001/74.5
 Ethnicity
  Asian12 (2,983/2016)0.47 (0.22–0.99)0.603/0.00.52 (0.26–1.07)0.494/0.00.52 (0.26–1.07)0.534/0.00.85 (0.65–1.10)0.004/60.40.83 (0.65–1.05)0.008/56.7
  Caucasian5 (1,139/919)0.45 (0.16–1.23)0.117/45.80.42 (0.11–1.65)0.007/71.50.43 (0.13–1.48)0.020/65.70.89 (0.45–1.78)<0.001/89.60.84 (0.45–1.55)<0.001/89.9
 Type of control
  Healthy controls14 (4,331/2,351)0.42 (0.25–0.70)0.586/0.00.43 (0.22–0.85)0.131/33.50.43 (0.23–0.81)0.208/24.70.88 (0.71–1.10)0.002/59.90.85 (0.69–1.06)<0.001/65.9
  Non-diabetic controls5 (869/999)0.77 (0.35–1.69)0.354/9.10.77 (0.31–1.92)0.198/33.60.78 (0.36–1.71)0.314/15.70.85 (0.40–1.81)<0.001/89.30.82 (0.44–1.55)<0.001/87.8
 Matching
  Age and sex17 (4,776/3,139)0.44 (0.28–0.70)0.630/0.00.51 (0.27–0.95)0.055/41.00.49 (0.28–0.87)0.148/28.80.89 (0.69–1.15)<0.001/76.60.85 (0.67–1.08)<0.001/77.1
HWE and Quality score > 7
  Overall19 (5,200/3,350)0.52 (0.34–0.79)0.462/0.00.53 (0.30–0.92)0.075/36.10.53 (0.32–0.88)0.158/26.40.88 (0.69–1.11)<0.001/74.30.85 (0.68–1.05)<0.001/74.5
 Ethnicity
  Asian12 (2,983/2016)0.47 (0.22–0.99)0.603/0.00.52 (0.26–1.07)0.494/0.00.52 (0.26–1.07)0.534/0.00.85 (0.65–1.10)0.004/60.40.83 (0.65–1.05)0.008/56.7
  Caucasian5 (1,139/919)0.45 (0.16–1.23)0.117/45.80.42 (0.11–1.65)0.007/71.50.43 (0.13–1.48)0.020/65.70.89 (0.45–1.78)<0.001/89.60.84 (0.45–1.55)<0.001/89.9
 Type of control
  Healthy controls14 (4,331/2,351)0.42 (0.25–0.70)0.586/0.00.43 (0.22–0.85)0.131/33.50.43 (0.23–0.81)0.208/24.70.88 (0.71–1.10)0.002/59.90.85 (0.69–1.06)<0.001/65.9
  Non-diabetic controls5 (869/999)0.77 (0.35–1.69)0.354/9.10.77 (0.31–1.92)0.198/33.60.78 (0.36–1.71)0.314/15.70.85 (0.40–1.81)<0.001/89.30.82 (0.44–1.55)<0.001/87.8
 Matching
  Age and sex17 (4,776/3,139)0.44 (0.28–0.70)0.630/0.00.51 (0.27–0.95)0.055/41.00.49 (0.28–0.87)0.148/28.80.89 (0.69–1.15)<0.001/76.60.85 (0.67–1.08)<0.001/77.1
Egger’s test
PE0.3810.4190.3430.8710.782

Meta-analysis of the association of eNOS 4b/4a polymorphism with risk of T2DM.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase. The bold values in table indicated that these results are statistically significant.

FIGURE 2

Overall, a substantial association was found between the eNOS G894T polymorphism and an increased risk of T2DM (GT vs. GG: OR = 1.32, 95% CI = 1.14–1.52; TT vs. GG: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.78; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 1.36, 95% CI = 1.17–1.57; TT vs. GG + GT: OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.00–1.51; T vs. G: OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.14–1.45, Table 7; Figure 3). Moreover, a significantly increased risk of T2DM was also found in Asians (GT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.15–2.01; T vs. G: OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.45) and Indians (GT vs. GG: OR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.18–3.90; GT + TT vs. GG: OR = 2.27, 95% CI = 1.17–4.39; T vs. G: OR = 1.97, 95% CI = 1.10–3.55, Table 7; Figure 3). Furthermore, similar results were also observed in the healthy control and matched analyses (Table 7).

TABLE 7

Variablen (Cases/Controls)GT vs. GGTT vs. GG(GT + TT) vs. GGTT vs. (GG + GT)T vs. G
Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)
Overall44 (10722/21256)1.32 (1.14–1.52)<0.001/75.91.39 (1.09–1.78)<0.001/51.81.36 (1.17–1.57)<0.001/78.91.23 (1.00–1.51)0.005/42.11.29 (1.14–1.45)<0.001/79.4
Ethnicity
 Asian20 (3,863/4,046)1.52 (1.15–2.01)<0.001/75.51.28 (0.73–2.27)0.315/12.91.52 (1.15–2.01)<0.001/76.70.98 (0.61–1.56)0.569/0.01.39 (1.09–1.76)<0.001/74.6
 Caucasian14 (3,067/12083)1.03 (0.87–1.21)0.029/46.31.37 (0.96–1.97)<0.001/67.21.08 (0.91–1.29)0.003/58.31.23 (0.90–1.67)0.001/62.41.09 (0.94–1.26)<0.001/66.0
 Indian5 (1,294/1,065)2.15 (1.18–3.90)<0.001/89.92.70 (0.63–11.65)0.001/82.92.27 (1.17–4.39)<0.001/92.22.08 (0.58–7.52)0.003/78.11.97 (1.10–3.55)<0.001/93.0
Type of control
 HC32 (7,589/6,541)1.38 (1.15–1.65)<0.001/75.41.48 (1.13–1.95)0.051/33.41.41 (1.18–1.68)<0.001/76.61.35 (1.05–1.73)0.090/28.31.33 (1.15–1.53)<0.001/74.7
 NDC12 (3,133/14715)1.18 (0.92–1.52)<0.001/76.11.29 (0.81–2.08)0.002/67.21.24 (0.94–1.63)<0.001/82.51.05 (0.75–1.49)0.033/52.31.18 (0.93–1.50)<0.001/85.5
Matching
 Age and sex41 (10103/20555)1.34 (1.15–1.56)<0.001/77.21.30 (1.02–1.67)0.007/42.11.37 (1.17–1.60)<0.001/79.61.13 (0.93–1.38)0.079/27.41.28 (1.13–1.46)<0.001/79.2
Sensitivity analysis
HWE
  Overall36 (9,817/20000)1.26 (1.10–1.45)<0.001/72.01.30 (1.03–1.64)0.007/43.91.29 (1.12–1.48)<0.001/74.51.21 (0.99–1.48)0.061/31.11.23 (1.10–1.38)<0.001/73.8
 Ethnicity
  Asian17 (3,636/3,428)1.44 (1.07–1.93)<0.001/76.71.04 (0.56–1.91)0.594/0.01.42 (1.06–1.91)<0.001/76.70.79 (0.46–1.36)0.941/0.01.29 (1.01–1.64)<0.001/72.1
  Caucasian11 (2,689/11805)1.03 (0.94–1.14)0.472/0.01.28 (0.87–1.87)<0.001/70.11.11 (0.94–1.32)0.022/51.91.23 (0.88–1.72)0.002/64.81.13 (0.96–1.34)<0.001/71.8
 Type of control
  HC27 (6,962/5,623)1.40 (1.16–1.68)<0.001/75.01.50 (1.13–1.99)0.098/29.81.43 (1.19–1.72)<0.001/76.31.36 (1.06–1.75)0.178/22.01.33 (1.14–1.53)<0.001/74.0
  NDC9 (2,855/14377)0.97 (0.86–1.09)0.306/15.40.99 (0.75–1.31)0.242/24.40.97 (0.84–1.13)0.126/36.51.01 (0.83–1.23)0.389/5.00.99 (0.86–1.14)0.049/48.6
 Matching
  Age and sex33 (9,198/19299)1.28 (1.10–1.49)<0.001/73.91.18 (0.96–1.45)0.175/20.81.29 (1.11–1.50)<0.001/75.31.11 (0.97–1.28)0.517/0.01.22 (1.08–1.37)<0.001/72.6
Quality score >7
  Overall18 (5,533/15633)1.09 (0.98–1.23)0.134/27.61.01 (0.83–1.23)0.416/3.11.20 (0.98–1.23)0.085/33.21.02 (0.86–1.20)0.500/0.01.07 (0.97–1.18)0.074/34.7
 Ethnicity
  Asian8 (1,464/1,093)1.33 (1.07–1.66)0.538/0.00.84 (0.23–3.15)0.882/0.01.32 (1.06–1.65)0.617/0.00.81 (0.22–3.02)0.856/0.01.27 (1.03–1.56)0.736/0.0
  Caucasian6 (1926/10916)0.99 (0.89–1.11)0.726/0.00.90 (0.61–1.32)0.087/50.80.99 (0.89–1.10)0.433/0.00.91 (0.64–1.29)0.119/45.50.98 (0.85–1.11)0.174/35.0
 Type of control
  HC10 (2,710/1,382)1.28 (1.10–1.49)0.477/0.01.24 (0.76–2.02)0.500/0.01.28 (1.10–1.49)0.598/0.01.17 (0.72–1.89)0.431/0.01.22 (1.07–1.39)0.645/0.0
  NDC8 (2,823/14251)0.98 (0.89–1.08)0.472/0.00.95 (0.73–1.25)0.271/21.60.97 (0.86–1.10)0.247/22.90.99 (0.83–1.19)0.415/0.10.98 (0.87–1.10)0.124/38.3
 Matching
  Age and sex17 (5,282/15523)1.11 (0.99–1.25)0.122/29.61.04 (0.86–1.26)0.431/1.51.12 (0.99–1.26)0.086/33.81.04 (0.87–1.23)0.495/0.01.09 (0.98–1.21)0.083/34.1
HWE and Quality score > 7
  Overall17 (5,449/15549)1.10 (0.98–1.24)0.102/31.91.01 (0.83–1.23)0.416/3.11.10 (0.98–1.24)0.063/37.11.02 (0.86–1.20)0.500/0.01.08 (0.97–1.20)0.054/38.5
 Ethnicity
  Asian8 (1,464/1,093)1.33 (1.07–1.66)0.538/0.00.84 (0.23–3.15)0.882/0.01.32 (1.06–1.65)0.617/0.00.81 (0.22–3.02)0.856/0.01.27 (1.03–1.56)0.736/0.0
  Caucasian5 (1842/10832)0.99 (0.89–1.11)0.591/0.00.90 (0.61–1.32)0.087/50.80.98 (0.86–1.13)0.305/17.20.91 (0.64–1.29)0.119/45.50.97 (0.83–1.13)0.105/47.8
 Type of control
  HC10 (2,710/1,382)1.28 (1.10–1.49)0.477/0.01.24 (0.76–2.02)0.500/0.01.28 (1.10–1.49)0.598/0.01.17 (0.72–1.89)0.431/0.01.22 (1.07–1.39)0.645/0.0
  NDC7 (2,739/14167)0.97 (0.87–1.09)0.365/8.30.95 (0.73–1.25)0.271/21.60.97 (0.85–1.12)0.172/33.50.99 (0.83–1.19)0.415/0.10.98 (0.86–1.12)0.079/46.9
 Matching
  Age and sex16 (5,198/15439)1.12 (0.99–1.26)0.090/34.01.04 (0.86–1.26)0.431/1.51.12 (0.99–1.27)0.063/37.91.04 (0.87–1.23)0.495/0.01.10 (0.98–1.22)0.060/38.2
 Egger’s test
PE0.0020.1990.0030.3900.0140.002

Meta-analysis of the association of eNOS G894T polymorphism with risk of T2DM.

HC, health controls; NDC, Non-diabetic controls; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase. The bold values in table indicated that these results are statistically significant.

FIGURE 3

Our study exposed an overall powerful association between eNOS T786C and T2DM susceptibility (TC vs. TT: OR = 1.28, 95%CI = 1.06–1.55; TC + CC vs. TT: OR = 1.31, 95%CI = 1.06–1.60; C vs. T: OR = 1.25, 95%CI = 1.04–1.49, Table 8; Figure 4). At the same time, subgroup studies revealed that Indians had a significantly increased risk of T2DM (TC vs. TT: OR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.27–2.94; TC + CC vs. TT: OR = 2.06, 95%CI = 1.26–3.36; C vs. T: OR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.17–3.08, Table 8; Figure 4). Moreover, no signification association was observed in the healthy population according to type of control (Table 8).

TABLE 8

Variablen (Cases/Controls)TC vs. TTCC vs. TTTC + CC vs. TTCC vs. (TT + TC)C vs. T
Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)Or (95%CI)Ph/I2 (%)
Overall13 (4,676/3,842)1.28 (1.06–1.55)0.001/63.11.28 (0.85–1.93)0.020/52.91.31 (1.06–1.60)<0.001/70.51.24 (0.88–1.75)0.094/38.31.25 (1.04–1.49)<0.001/73.4
Ethnicity
 Asian4 (1,660/1974)1.32 (0.94–1.85)0.091/53.61.43 (0.42–4.91)0.125/51.91.35 (0.94–1.94)0.052/61.21.37 (0.42–4.44)0.144/48.41.33 (0.93–1.90)0.034/65.5
 Indian3 (943/615)1.93 (1.27–2.94)0.061/64.32.43 (0.98–6.01)0.179/41.92.06 (1.26–3.36)0.016/75.91.95 (0.88–4.33)0.255/26.81.90 (1.17–3.08)0.005/81.1
Type of control
 Healthy controls11 (4,551/3,373)1.22 (0.99–1.48)0.002/64.01.22 (0.83–1.81)0.033/50.51.23 (0.99–1.52)<0.001/71.51.21 (0.88–1.67)0.146/32.81.18 (0.98–1.41)<0.001/74.0
Sensitivity analysis
 HWE
  Overall12 (4,476/3,742)1.27 (1.03–1.55)0.001/65.31.28 (0.85–1.93)0.020/52.91.29 (1.04–1.60)<0.001/72.51.24 (0.88–1.75)0.094/38.31.25 (1.03–1.51)<0.001/75.6
 Ethnicity
  Asian4 (1,660/1974)1.32 (0.94–1.85)0.091/53.61.43 (0.42–4.91)0.125/51.91.35 (0.94–1.94)0.052/61.21.37 (0.42–4.44)0.144/48.41.33 (0.93–1.90)0.034/65.5
  Indian3 (943/615)1.93 (1.27–2.94)0.061/64.32.43 (0.98–6.01)0.179/41.92.06 (1.26–3.36)0.016/75.91.95 (0.88–4.33)0.255/26.81.90 (1.17–3.08)0.005/81.1
 Type of control
  Healthy controls10 (4,351/3,273)1.19 (0.97–1.47)0.002/66.41.22 (0.83–1.81)0.033/50.51.21 (0.96–1.51)<0.001/73.71.21 (0.88–1.67)0.146/32.81.18 (0.97–1.43)<0.001/76.6
 Quality score >7
  Overall5 (1,649/1,014)1.70 (1.23–2.35)0.036/61.02.32 (1.25–4.33)0.220/30.21.82 (1.31–2.55)0.019/66.01.97 (1.16–3.37)0.314/15.81.74 (1.28–2.36)0.008/70.7
 Ethnicity
  Indian3 (943/615)1.93 (1.27–2.94)0.061/64.32.42 (0.98–6.01)0.179/41.92.06 (1.26–3.36)0.016/75.91.95 (0.88–4.33)0.255/26.81.90 (1.17–3.08)0.005/81.1
 Type of control
  Healthy controls4 (1,560/715)1.67 (1.13–2.47)0.020/69.42.07 (1.20–3.58)0.305/17.21.79 (1.20–2.66)0.011/73.01.82 (1.14–2.89)0.439/0.01.69 (1.19–2.40)0.006/75.7
 HWE and Quality score >7
  Overall5 (1,649/1,014)1.70 (1.23–2.35)0.036/61.02.32 (1.25–4.33)0.220/30.21.82 (1.31–2.55)0.019/66.01.97 (1.16–3.37)0.314/15.81.74 (1.28–2.36)0.008/70.7
 Ethnicity
  Indian3 (943/615)1.93 (1.27–2.94)0.061/64.32.42 (0.98–6.01)0.179/41.92.06 (1.26–3.36)0.016/75.91.95 (0.88–4.33)0.255/26.81.90 (1.17–3.08)0.005/81.1
 Type of control
  Healthy controls4 (1,560/715)1.67 (1.13–2.47)0.020/69.42.07 (1.20–3.58)0.305/17.21.79 (1.20–2.66)0.011/73.01.82 (1.14–2.89)0.439/0.01.69 (1.19–2.40)0.006/75.7
 Egger’s test
PE0.4200.9410.4980.9050.517

Meta-analysis of the association of eNOS T786C polymorphism with risk of T2DM.

HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase. The bold values in table indicated that these results are statistically significant.

FIGURE 4

Heterogeneity and Sensitivity Analyses

Several possible causes of variation were discovered, including ethnicity, gender, sample size, age, quality score, type of controls and HWE. Therefore, a meta-regression analysis was used to identify causes of heterogeneity. For the eNOS G894T, no covariate was found as a possible cause of between-study variation. A meta-regression analysis revealed that HWE (ab vs. aa: p = 0.045) was the source of heterogeneity between the eNOS 4b/a polymorphism and the risk of T2DM. At the same time, the quality score (TC vs. TT: p = 0.045; TC + CC vs. TT: p = 0.042; C vs. T: p = 0.041) and HWE (CC vs. TT: p = 0.029; CC vs. TC + TT: p = 0.041) were the sources of heterogeneity between the eNOS T786C polymorphism and the risk of T2DM.

Three methods were employed for sensitivity analyses in this meta-analysis. Firstly, results did not alter when a single study was removed each time. Second, when HWD studies were omitted, Asians were found to have a significantly lower risk of eNOS 4b/a polymorphism and T2DM in the overall analysis (Table 6). For the eNOS G894T polymorphism, significantly increased T2DM risk was only observed in Asians and healthy population when we retained high-quality and HWE studies in the control group (Table 7). For the eNOS T786C polymorphism, a significant association was also discovered in the healthy population when we only included high-quality and HWE studies in the control group (Table 8).

Publication Bias

Begg’s funnel plot and Egger’s test revealed only publication bias between the eNOS G894T polymorphism and T2DM risk (GT vs. GG: p = 0.002; GT + TT vs. GG: p = 0.003; T against G: p = 0.014, Table 7). Then, publication bias was adjusted using the nonparametric “trim and fill” method. And we need to add 13, 11, and 10 articles in the future for GT vs. GG, GT + TT vs. GG, and T vs. G models, respectively (Figure 5). In the overall analysis, the findings for GT vs. GG, GT + TT vs. GG, and T vs. G models did not change (data not shown), demonstrating that more research cannot alter the merger outcomes.

FIGURE 5

TSA Results

The TSA of the dominant model for the eNOS 4b/a and T786C polymorphisms revealed that the cumulative z-curve passed both the RIS line and the TSA threshold, indicating that no more evidence was required to confirm the conclusion. However, multiple comparisons and other confounding factors, we believe, can still increase the occurrence of false positive errors, so credibility analysis is still required for the eNOS 4b/a and T786C polymorphisms. The cumulative Z-curve of the dominant model for the eNOS G894T polymorphism did not surpass the TSA threshold, and the total number of cases and controls was smaller than the RIS, according to the TSA. Therefore, more trials were still required to confirm the association between eNOS G894T polymorphism and T2DM risk. Figure 6 displays the above results.

FIGURE 6

Credibility of the Identified Genetic Associations

The credibility of this meta-analysis was assessed using the FPRP, BFDP, and Venice criteria. Associations meeting the following criteria were regarded to be of high credibility [29]: 1) statistically significant associations were observed in at least two of the genetic models; 2) FPRP <0.2 and BFDP <0.8; 3) I2 < 50%; and 4) statistical power >80%. All other major findings were viewed as “less credible results”. All statistically significant associations were deemed “less credible” in this study.

Discussion

T2DM is a polygenic genetic disease, which is also greatly influenced by environmental factors. And it is the outcome of the combined action of numerous genes and environmental factors. Several studies have shown that diabetes is the most important risk factor for mortality and disability caused by cardiovascular and cerebrovascular illnesses, according to several research. However, the molecular mechanism of the genetics of T2DM has not been elucidated. Much significant evidence indicates that the eNOS polymorphisms have been considered as potential genetic factors for T2DM. Numerous eNOS polymorphisms have been reported, and their relationship with various disorders has been studied, including coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, coronary spasm, hypertension, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and T2DM. Previous research has focused on three eNOS polymorphisms: the intronic 427-bp repeat (4b/a) in the promoter region; the G894T (Glu298Asp) missense mutation in exon seven and the T786C single nucleotide polymorphism. T786C inhibits eNOS transcription, G894T inhibits eNOS activity, and 4b/a inhibits plasma NO concentrations, which may be a reflection of eNOS activity. Many researchers have sought to investigate the potential relationship between eNOS polymorphisms and T2DM risk. Regrettably, no credible evidence is available, which might be attributable to a variety of factors such as small sample numbers, ethnic and geographical disparities. As a result, meta-analysis is an effective method to conquer these flaws.

Overall, the eNOS 4b/a was connected with a substantially lower the risk of T2DM in Asians; the eNOS G894T was connected with a significantly higher risk of T2DM in Asians, however, it had no significant effect on the risk of T2DM in Caucasians. the eNOS T786C was connected with a significantly higher risk of T2DM in Indians. However, after omitting low-quality and HWD studies, we observed that eNOS 4b/a polymorphism substantially lowered T2DM risk in the entire population while eNOS T786C polymorphism considerably raised T2DM risk in the whole population. However, after omitting low-quality and HWD studies, we observed that eNOS 4b/a polymorphism substantially lowered T2DM risk in the entire population while eNOS T786C polymorphism considerably raised T2DM risk in the whole population. The current study used many subgroups and distinct genetic models, which resulted in multiple comparisons, so the pooled p value must be corrected. FPRP has been described as a proper method for assessing the likelihood of significant outcomes in molecular epidemiology investigations using multiple hypothesis testing. Furthermore, Wakefield suggested a more accurate Bayesian metric of false detection in genetic epidemiology investigations in 2007. Many factors may lead to errors and biases, such as genotyping errors and phenotypic misclassification, of which statistical power was a significant factor. A substantial amount of evidence (statistical power>80%) can achieve a higher degree of statistical significance or reduce the false-discovery rate. As a result, in this study, we used the FPRP test, BFDP test and the Venice criteria to evaluate false discovery. All the statistically significant connections were less-credible in the current meta-analysis after assessing credibility. Our meta-analysis has also revealed heterogeneity. According to the results of the meta-regression study, the quality score and HWE were the sources of heterogeneity. Furthermore, bias and mistakes were widespread in several HWD studies with low quality and small sample size, making the conclusion of these original studies untrustworthy, particularly in molecular epidemiology studies. And small sample studies with positive results may be easier to accept since they are likely to produce false-positive results because their research is less rigorous and frequently of poor quality. The asymmetry of the funnel plot was created by a study of low-quality small samples. Therefore, we added high-quality and HWE to evaluate sensitivity analyses in control studies.

We hypothesized that the single and combined effects of the eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms were linked with T2DM risk in all races based on the biochemical features outlined for these genes. Nevertheless, when we applied the FPRP, BFDP test, and Venice criteria to assess the credibility of this meta-analysis, all statistically significant relationships were declared “less credible” (greater heterogeneity, FPRP >0.2, BRDP >0.8, and lower statistic power). Therefore, these results indicated that much larger sample size was needed to study the potential gene-gene interactions.

A total of three previously published meta-analyses investigated the relationship between the eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms and the risk of T2DM. There was a clear mismatch in the categorization of ethnic groupings between the previous related meta-analyses and the current meta-analysis. Furthermore, the sample size in this study was substantially greater. A total of 66 articles were included in this study, of which 36 articles reported the eNOS 4b/a (8,553 cases and 6,613 controls), 44 articles investigated the eNOS G894T (10,722 cases and 21,256 controls), and 13 articles reported the eNOS T786C (4,676 cases and 3,842 controls). Five genetic models were compared separately in this study. However, Dong et al., Zhang et al. and Jia et al. applied four genetic models. In addition, when we used the FPRP, BFDP test, and Venice criteria to assess the credibility of the previous meta-analyses, all statistically significant relationships were deemed “less credible.” As a result, their findings may be unreliable.

Compared with the previous meta-analysis, the new meta-analysis had several advantages: 1) credibility was investigated using FPRP, BFDP test and Venice criteria; 2) the quality of the eligible research was evaluated; 3) The sample size was larger and the data collected was more detailed than the previous meta-analyses; 4) more subgroup analyses were performed according to the type of control, matching and quality score; 5) TSA was carried out to decrease random mistakes. However, there are still some potential limitations in the current meta-analysis. First, the current meta-analysis included only published research, although positive outcomes are known to be published more frequently than negative ones. Second, T2DM is a complex multi-genetic disorder, and the link between an individual SNP and T2DM risk is relatively weak. However, we did not retrieve the corresponding data on the combined impacts of gene-gene and gene-environment. Third, the relationship between the eNOS polymorphisms and the risk of T2DM complications has not been investigated. Therefore, the current meta-analysis has a large sample size and a sufficiently large subgroup to help confirm our findings.

To summarize, our study reveals that all substantial relationships between the eNOS 4b/a, G894T, and T786C polymorphisms and T2DM risk are most likely due to false-positive results rather than real connections or biological variables. larger-scale epidemiological studies on this topic should be conducted in the future to confirm or disprove our findings.

Statements

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Author contributions

DW: research design and performance, data collection, data analysis, paper writing. LL: data collection. CZ: data recheck. WL: methodology. FW and XH: research design and paper review.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Abbreviations

AIS, accruing information size; BFDP, Bayesian false discovery probability; CIs, confidence intervals; CNKI, China National Knowledge Infrastructure; eNOS, endothelial nitric oxide synthase; FPRP, false-positive report probability; HWD, Hardy–Weinberg Disequilibrium; HWE, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; ISI; International Statistical Institute; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; NO, Nitric oxide; ORs, odds ratios; RIS, required information size; RRR, relative risk reduction; T2DM, type 2 diabetes mellitus; TSA, Trial sequential analysis.

References

  • 1

    AbdullahS.JarrarY.AlhawariH.AbedE.ZihlifM. (2021). The Influence of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Genetic Polymorphisms on Cholesterol Blood Levels Among Type 2 Diabetic Patients on Atorvastatin Therapy. Endocr. Metab. Immune Disord. Drug Targets21 (2), 352359. 10.2174/1871530320666200621174858

  • 2

    AngelineT.KrithigaH. R.IsabelW.AsirvathamA. J.PoornimaA. (2011). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism (G894T) and Diabetes Mellitus (Type II) Among South Indians. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev.2011, 462607. 10.1155/2011/462607

  • 3

    AsakimoriY.YoriokaN.YamamotoI.OkumotoS.DoiS.HiraiT.et al (2001). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Intron 4 Polymorphism Influences the Progression of Renal Disease. Nephron89 (2), 219223. 10.1159/000046071

  • 4

    BaeJ.KimI. J.HongS. H.SungJ. H.LimS. W.ChaD. H.et al (2010). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Polymorphisms with Coronary Artery Disease in Korean Individuals with or without Diabetes Mellitus. Exp. Ther. Med.1 (4), 719724. 10.3892/etm_00000111

  • 5

    BeggC. B.MazumdarM. (1994). Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias. Biometrics50, 10881101. 10.2307/2533446

  • 6

    BresslerJ.PankowJ. S.CoreshJ.BoerwinkleE. (2013). Interaction between the NOS3 Gene and Obesity as a Determinant of Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. PLoS One8 (11), e79466. 10.1371/journal.pone.0079466

  • 7

    BrokJ.ThorlundK.GluudC.WetterslevJ. (2008). Trial Sequential Analysis Reveals Insufficient Information Size and Potentially False Positive Results in Many Meta-Analyses. J. Clin. Epidemiol.61, 763769. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.007

  • 8

    CorapciogluD.SahinM.EmralR.CelebiZ. K.SenerO.GedikV. T. (2010). Association of the G894T Polymorphism of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with Diabetic Foot Syndrome Foot Ulcer, Diabetic Complications, and Comorbid Vascular Diseases: a Turkish Case-Control Study. Genet. Test. Mol. Biomarkers14 (4), 483488. 10.1089/gtmb.2010.0023

  • 9

    DaiH. S.ZhangY. (2012). An Association Study of MTHFR and eNOS Genes Polymorphism with Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Trauma Disabil. Med.20 (6), 46.

  • 10

    de SyllosR. W.SandrimV. C.LisboaH. R.TresG. S.Tanus-SantosJ. E. (2006). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Genotype and Haplotype Are Not Associated with Diabetic Retinopathy in Diabetes Type 2 Patients. Nitric Oxide15 (4), 417422. 10.1016/j.niox.2006.02.002

  • 11

    DengW. Q.WeiJ.WuY. N.WangF. H.SongD. Y.JiangY. Z.et al (2009). Association between Polymorphism of Endothe-Lial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene and Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Erectile Dysfunction. Lin. Chuang Hui Cui24, 481485 (In Chinese).

  • 12

    DerSimonianR.LairdN. (2015). Meta-analysis in Clinical Trials Revisited. Contemp. Clin. Trials45, 139145. 10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002

  • 13

    DongJ.PingY.WangY.ZhangY. (2018). The Roles of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphisms in Diabetes Mellitus and its Associated Vascular Complications: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Endocrine62 (2), 412422. 10.1007/s12020-018-1683-4

  • 14

    DongY. H.QuS. P.LuW. S.DingM.DongC.JiangH. W.et al (2005). Gene Polymorphism in Chromosome 7q35 and Susceptibility to Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Endocrinol. Metab. (1), 5154.

  • 15

    DualS.TweedieR. (2000). A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc.95, 8998. 10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905

  • 16

    EggerM.SmithD. G.SchneiderM.MinderC. (1997). Bias in Meta-Analysis Detected by a Simple, Graphical Test. Br. Med. J.315, 629634. 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

  • 17

    El-Din BessaS. S.HamdyS. M. (2011). Impact of Nitric Oxide Synthase Glu298Asp Polymorphism on the Development of End-Stage Renal Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Egyptian Patients. Ren. Fail33 (9), 878884. 10.3109/0886022X.2011.605978

  • 18

    EzzidiI.MtiraouiN.MohamedM. B.MahjoubT.KacemM.AlmawiW. Y. (2008). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Glu298Asp, 4b/a, and -786T>C Gene Variants with Diabetic Nephropathy. J. Diabetes Complicat.22 (5), 331338. 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2007.11.011

  • 19

    Ferland-McColloughD.OzanneS. E.SiddleK.WillisA. E.BushellM. (2010). The Involvement of microRNAs in Type 2 Diabetes. Biochem. Soc. Trans.38, 15651570. 10.1042/bst0381565

  • 20

    FuZ. J.LiC. G.WangZ. C.YanS. L. (2007). Coexistence of Aldose Reduction Gene and Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Polymorphisms Associates with Diabetic Nephropathy. J. Clin. Rehabil. Tissue Eng. Res.11 (34), 68936896.

  • 21

    GalanakisE.KofteridisD.StratigiK.PetrakiE.VazgiourakisV.FragouliE.et al (2008). Intron 4 A/b Polymorphism of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Is Associated with Both Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in a Genetically Homogeneous Population. Hum. Immunol.69 (4-5), 279283. 10.1016/j.humimm.2008.03.001

  • 22

    GaultonK. J. (2017). Mechanisms of Type 2 Diabetes Risk Loci. Curr. Diab Rep.17 (9), 72. 10.1007/s11892-017-0908-x

  • 23

    GuoX. J.LiuS. J. (2012). The Association between Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism and Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy. China Healthc. Innov.6 (19), 35.

  • 24

    GustiA. M. T.QustiS. Y.BahijriS. M.ToraihE. A.BokhariS.AttallahS. M.et al (2021). Glutathione S-Transferase (GSTT1rs17856199) and Nitric Oxide Synthase (NOS2 Rs2297518) Genotype Combination as Potential Oxidative Stress-Related Molecular Markers for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes.14, 13851403. 10.2147/DMSO.S300525

  • 25

    HaldarS. R.ChakrabartyA.ChowdhuryS.HaldarA.SenguptaS.BhattacharyyaM. (2015). Oxidative Stress-Related Genes in Type 2 Diabetes: Association Analysis and Their Clinical Impact. Biochem. Genet.53 (4-6), 93119. 10.1007/s10528-015-9675-z

  • 26

    HouH.ZhangF.ZhaoM.CaoG.HuangH.HuangP. (2012). Relationship between Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Glu298Asp Gene Polymorphisms and the Chronic Periodontitis with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi30 (6), 628631.

  • 27

    HuangH. S.LinL. X.ChenM. (2002). Association of Poly-Morphism of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with Essential Hypertension and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Zhong Hua Nei Fen Mi Dai Xie Za Zhi18.

  • 28

    IoannidisJ. P.BoffettaP.LittleJ.O'BrienT. R.UitterlindenA. G.VineisP.et al (2008). Assessment of Cumulative Evidence on Genetic Associations: Interim Guidelines. Int. J. Epidemiol.37, 120132. 10.1093/ije/dym159

  • 29

    JamilK.KandulaV.KandulaR.AsimuddinM.JoshiS.YerraS. K. (2014). Polymorphism of CYP3A4 2 and eNOS Genes in the Diabetic Patients with Hyperlipidemia Undergoing Statin Treatment. Mol. Biol. Rep.41 (10), 67196727. 10.1007/s11033-014-3557-z

  • 30

    JamwalS.SharmaS. (2018). Vascular Endothelium Dysfunction: a Conservative Target in Metabolic Disorders. Inflamm. Res.67 (5), 391405. 10.1007/s00011-018-1129-8

  • 31

    JiaZ.ZhangX.KangS.WuY. (2013). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphisms with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: a Meta-Analysis. Endocr. J.60 (7), 893901. 10.1507/endocrj.ej12-0463

  • 32

    KimO. J.KimU. K.OhS. H.ChoY. W.OhK. I.OhD.et al (2010). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Polymorphisms and Haplotypes with Ischemic Stroke in Korean Individuals with or without Diabetes Mellitus. Mol. Med. Rep.3 (3), 509513. 10.3892/mmr_00000289

  • 33

    KinclV.VaskůA.MeluzínJ.PanovskýR.SeménkaJ.GrochL. (2009). Association of the eNOS 4a/b and -786T/C Polymormphisms with Coronary Artery Disease, Obesity and Diabetes Mellitus. Folia Biol. (Praha)55 (5), 187191.

  • 34

    KsiazekP.WojewodaP.MucK.BuraczynskaM. (2003). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Intron 4 Polymorphism in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Mol. Diagn7 (2), 119123. 10.1007/BF03260027

  • 35

    KulinskayaE.WoodJ. (2014). Trial Sequential Methods for Meta-Analysis. Res. Synth. Methods5, 212220. 10.1002/jrsm.1104

  • 36

    LarsenT.MoseF. H.BechJ. N.PedersenE. B. (2012). Effect of Nitric Oxide Inhibition on Blood Pressure and Renal Sodium Handling: a Dose-Response Study in Healthy Man. Clin. Exp. Hypertens.34, 567574. 10.3109/10641963.2012.681727

  • 37

    LeeY. J.ChangD. M.TsaiJ. C. (2003). Association of a 27-bp Repeat Polymorphism in Intron 4 of Endothelial Constitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with Serum Uric Acid Levels in Chinese Subjects with Type 2 Diabetes. Metabolism52 (11), 14481453. 10.1016/s0026-0495(03)00258-0

  • 38

    LiC.DongY.W. (2001). The Association between Polymorphism of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene and Diabetic Nephropathy. Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi40 (11), 729732.

  • 39

    LiH. M.MiaoH.LuY. B.ChengJ. L. (2005). Association between the Polymorphism of Human Vitamin D Receptor Gene and the Susceptibility of Diabetic Nephropathy in Chinese Han Population. Chin. J. Clin. Rehabil.9, 14.

  • 40

    LiH.WallerathT.MünzelT.FörstermannU. (2002). Regulation of Endothelial-type NO Synthase Expression in Pathophysiology and in Response to Drugs. Nitric Oxide7 (3), 149164. 10.1016/s1089-8603(02)00111-8

  • 41

    LiJ. Y.TaoF.WuX. X.TanY. Z.HeL.LuH. (2015). Polymorphic Variations in Manganese Superoxide Dismutase (MnSOD) and Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) Genes Contribute to the Development of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Chinese Han Population. Genet. Mol. Res.14 (4), 1299313002. 10.4238/2015.October.21.20

  • 42

    LiM. W.LiX. X.ZhaoM. W.JiL. N. (2010). Association of Genetic Polymorphism of Nitric Oxide Synthase and Diabetic Retinopathy (Chinese). Chin. J. Ocul. Fundus Dis.26, 135138.

  • 43

    LiX. N.YuM. X.WuX. Y.ShuiH.XiaoJ. S. (2011). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Glu298Asp Polymorphism with Diabetic Kidney Disease. J. Clin. Nephrol.11 (8), 351353.

  • 44

    LinS.QuH.QiuM. (2002). Allele A in Intron 4 of ecNOS Gene Will Not Increase the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 2 Diabetes of Chinese Population. Nephron91 (4), 768. 10.1159/000065048

  • 45

    LuoH.NingY. Y. (2003). Relationship between Gene Polymorphism of Endothelial Nitricoxide Synthase and Early Intervention of Patients with Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Clin. Rehabil.7 (12), 17661767.

  • 46

    LuoR.FanJ. Y.ZhangP.LiuW.GaoZ. H.ZhuT. H. (2006). A Study on Relationship between the Endothelial Consti-Tutive Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism and the Coronary Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. J. Chin. Phys. (1), 57.

  • 47

    MaJ. R. (2003). Study on the Relationship between the Endothelial Constitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase (ecNOS) Gene Polymorphism and the Development of Diabetic Vascular Complication in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. Tianjin: Tianjin Medical University.

  • 48

    MaJ. R.YuD. M.LiuD. (2007). The Relationship between the G894T Mutation of the Endothelial-Constitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase (ecNOS) and Diabetic Microangiopa-Thies. Zhong Guo Tang Niao Bing Za Zhi15, 471473.

  • 49

    MackawyA. M.KhanA. A.Badawy Mel-S. (2014). Association of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene G894T Polymorphism with the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy in Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia-A Pilot Study. Meta Gene2, 392402. 10.1016/j.mgene.2014.04.009

  • 50

    MantelN.HaenszelW. (1959). Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data from Retrospective Studies of Disease. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.22, 719748.

  • 51

    Mehrab-MohseniM.Tabatabaei-MalazyO.Hasani-RanjbarS.AmiriP.KouroshniaA.BazzazJ. T.et al (2011). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase VNTR (Intron 4 A/b) Polymorphism Association with Type 2 Diabetes and its Chronic Complications. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.91 (3), 348352. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.12.030

  • 52

    MoguibO.RaslanH. M.Abdel RasheedI.EffatL.MohamedN.El SerougyS.et al (2017). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene (T786C and G894T) Polymorphisms in Egyptian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol.15 (2), 431436. 10.1016/j.jgeb.2017.05.001

  • 53

    MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G.PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA Statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol.62 (10), 10061012. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005

  • 54

    MomeniA.ChaleshtoriM. H.SaadatmandS.KheiriS. (2016). Correlation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism (GG, TT and GT Genotype) with Proteinuria and Retinopathy in Type 2 Diabetic Patients. J. Clin. Diagn Res.10 (2), OC32OC35. 10.7860/JCDR/2016/14975.7291

  • 55

    MontiL. D.BarlassinaC.CitterioL.GalluccioE.BerzuiniC.SetolaE.et al (2003). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Polymorphisms Are Associated with Type 2 Diabetes and the Insulin Resistance Syndrome. Diabetes52 (5), 12701275. 10.2337/diabetes.52.5.1270

  • 56

    NagaseS.SuzukiH.WangY.KikuchiS.HirayamaA.UedaA.et al (2003). Association of ecNOS Gene Polymorphisms with End Stage Renal Diseases. Mol. Cell. Biochem.244 (1-2), 113118. 10.1007/978-1-4615-0247-0_16

  • 57

    NeugebauerS.BabaT.WatanabeT. (2000). Association of the Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism with an Increased Risk for Progression to Diabetic Nephropathy in Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes49 (3), 500503. 10.2337/diabetes.49.3.500

  • 58

    NoiriE.SatohH.TaguchiJ.BrodskyS. V.NakaoA.OgawaY.et al (2002). Association of eNOS Glu298Asp Polymorphism with End-Stage Renal Disease. Hypertension40 (4), 535540. 10.1161/01.hyp.0000033974.57407.82

  • 59

    OdebergJ.LarssonC. A.RåstamL.LindbladU. (2008). The Asp298 Allele of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Is a Risk Factor for Myocardial Infarction Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. BMC Cardiovasc Disord.8, 36. 10.1186/1471-2261-8-36

  • 60

    OhtoshiK.YamasakiY.GorogawaS.Hayaishi-OkanoR.NodeK.MatsuhisaM.et al (2002). Association of (-)786t-C Mutation of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with Insulin Resistance. Diabetologia45 (11), 15941601. 10.1007/s00125-002-0922-6

  • 61

    PapazafiropoulouA.PapanasN.MelidonisA.MaltezosE. (2016). Family History of Type 2 Diabetes: Does Having a Diabetic Parent Increase the Risk?Cdr13 (1), 1925. 10.2174/1573399812666151022143502

  • 62

    PulkkinenA.ViitanenL.KareinenA.LehtoS.VauhkonenI.LaaksoM. (2000). Intron 4 Polymorphism of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Is Associated with Elevated Blood Pressure in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Coronary Heart Disease. J. Mol. Med. Berl.78 (7), 372379. 10.1007/s001090000124

  • 63

    RahimiZ.RahimiZ.Shahvaisi-ZadehF.SadegheiS.VessalM.YavariN. (2013). eNOS 4a/b Polymorphism and its Interaction with eNOS G894T Variants in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Modifying the Risk of Diabetic Nephropathy. Dis. Markers34 (6), 437443. 10.3233/DMA-13098810.1155/2013/512107

  • 64

    RainaP.SikkaR.GuptaH.MatharooK.BaliS. K.SinghV.et al (2021). Association of eNOS and MCP-1 Genetic Variants with Type 2 Diabetes and Diabetic Nephropathy Susceptibility: A Case-Control and Meta-Analysis Study. Biochem. Genet.59, 966996. 10.1007/s10528-021-10041-2

  • 65

    RenT.XiangS. S.LiuL. (2003). An Association of Dia-Betic Neuropathy with Polymorphisms of eNOS, PON1,RAGE and ALR2 Genes. Shang Hai Yi Yao26, 2427.

  • 66

    RittM.OttC.DellesC.SchneiderM. P.SchmiederR. E. (2008). Impact of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene G894T Polymorphism on Renal Endothelial Function in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Pharmacogenet Genomics18 (8), 699707. 10.1097/FPC.0b013e32830500b1

  • 67

    RizviS.RazaS. T.RahmanQ.EbaA.ZaidiZ. H.MahdiF. (2019). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) and Norepinephrine Transporter (NET) Genes Polymorphism with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Mol. Biol. Rep.46 (5), 54335441. 10.1007/s11033-019-04998-y

  • 68

    SandrimV. C.de SyllosR. W.LisboaH. R.TresG. S.Tanus-SantosJ. E. (2006). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Haplotypes Affect the Susceptibility to Hypertension in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Atherosclerosis189 (1), 241246. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2005.12.011

  • 69

    SantosK. G.CrispimD.CananiL. H.FerrugemP. T.GrossJ. L.RoisenbergI. (2011). Association of eNOS Gene Polymorphisms with Renal Disease in Caucasians with Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.91 (3), 353362. 10.1016/j.diabres.2010.12.029

  • 70

    SheC.YangX.GuH.DengY.XuJ.MaK.et al (2015). The Association of Variable Number of Tandem Repeats Polymorphism in the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene and Diabetic Retinopathy. Zhonghua Yan Ke Za Zhi51 (5), 338343.

  • 71

    Shin ShinY.BaekS. H.ChangK. Y.ParkC. W.YangC. W.JinD. C.et al (2004). Relations between eNOS Glu298Asp Polymorphism and Progression of Diabetic Nephropathy. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract.65 (3), 257265. 10.1016/j.diabres.2004.01.010

  • 72

    SimmonsJ.GregoryJ. M.Kumah-CrystalY. A.SimmonsJ. H. (2009). Mitigating Micro- and Macro-Vascular Complications of Diabetes Beginning in Adolescence. Vhrm5, 10151031. 10.2147/vhrm.s4891

  • 73

    SunH-Y.YangM.LiuS.WangC.ZhangQ.ChenM. (2004). Study on the Correlation of the Polymorphisms of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Prev. Contr Chron. Non-Commun Dis.12 (3), 101103.

  • 74

    SuzukiH.NagaseS.KikuchiS.WangY.KoyamaA. (2000). Association of a Missense Glu298Asp Mutation of the Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene with End Stage Renal Disease. Clin. Chem.46 (11), 18581860. 10.1093/clinchem/46.11.1858

  • 75

    SzabóG. V.KunstárA.AcsádyG. (2009). Methylentetrahydrofolate Reductase and Nitric Oxide Synthase Polymorphism in Patients with Atherosclerosis and Diabetes. Pathol. Oncol. Res.15 (4), 631637. 10.1007/s12253-009-9163-z

  • 76

    Thaha, M., Pranawa, YogiantoroM.SutjiptoSunarjoTanimotoM.et al (2008). Association of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Glu298Asp Polymorphism with End-Stage Renal Disease. Clin. Nephrol.70 (2), 144154. 10.5414/cnp70144

  • 77

    ThorlundK.WetterslevJ.BrokJ.ImbergerG.GluudG. (2011). User Manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research.

  • 78

    TsutsuiM.ShimokawaH.MorishitaT.NakashimaY.YanagiharaN. (2006). Development of Genetically Engineered Mice Lacking All Three Nitric Oxide Synthases. J. Pharmacol. Sci.102 (2), 147154. 10.1254/jphs.cpj06015x

  • 79

    UkkolaO.ErkkiläP. H.SavolainenM. J.KesäniemiY. A. (2001). Lack of Association between Polymorphisms of Catalase, Copper-Zinc Superoxide Dismutase (SOD), Extracellular SOD and Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Genes and Macroangiopathy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. J. Intern Med.249 (5), 451459. 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00828.x

  • 80

    VeldmanB. A.SpieringW.DoevendansP. A.VervoortG.KroonA. A.de LeeuwP. W.et al (2002). The Glu298Asp Polymorphism of the NOS 3 Gene as a Determinant of the Baseline Production of Nitric Oxide. J. Hypertens.20 (10), 20232027. 10.1097/00004872-200210000-00022

  • 81

    WacholderS.ChanockS.Garcia-ClosasM.El GhormliL.RothmanN. (2004). Assessing the Probability that a Positive Report Is False: an Approach for Molecular Epidemiology Studies. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.96, 434442. 10.1093/jnci/djh075

  • 82

    WakefieldJ. (2007). A Bayesian Measure of the Probability of False Discovery in Genetic Epidemiology Studies. Am. J. Hum. Genet.81, 208227. 10.1086/519024

  • 83

    WangS. L. (2005). Study of the Susceptibility Genes of Type 2 Diabetic Nephropathy in Northern Chinese. Shandong: Shandong University.

  • 84

    WangX. L.MahaneyM. C.SimA. S.WangJ.WangJ. (1997). Genetic Contribution of the Endothelial Constitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene to Plasma Nitric Oxide Levels. Arterioscler. Thromb. V. asc Biol.17, 31473153. 10.1161/01.atv.17.11.3147

  • 85

    WangY.KikuchiS.SuzukiH.NagaseS.KoyamaA. (1999). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism in Intron 4 Affects the Progression of Renal Failure in Non-Diabetic Renal Diseases. Nephrol. Dial. Transplant.14 (12), 28982902. 10.1093/ndt/14.12.2898

  • 86

    WellsB. S. G. A.O’ConnellD.PetersonJ.WelchV.LososM. P. (2014). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses. Ottawa: Professor GA Wells.

  • 87

    WetterslevJ.ThorlundK.BrokJ.GluudC. (2009). Estimating Required Information Size by Quantifying Diversity in Random-Effects Model Meta-Analyses. Bmc Med. Res. Methodol.9, 86. 10.1186/1471-2288-9-86

  • 88

    WuY.GeJ.ShengJ. (2007). The Ralationship between Polymorphism of Intron 4 (4b/a) of the Endothelial Con-Stitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene and Type 2 Diabe-Tes Millitus Complicated with Coronary Heart Disease. He Bei Yi Yao29, 539541.

  • 89

    YigitS.NursalA. F.UzunS.RustemogluH.DashatanP. A.SoyluH.et al (2020). Impact of Endothelial NOS VNTR Variant on Susceptibility to Diabetic Neuropathy and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Curr. Neurovasc Res.17 (5), 700705. 10.2174/1567202617999201214230147

  • 90

    YuL. H.TianG.CaiJ.WangX. (2009). Study on Rela-Tionship between the Endothelial Constitutive Nitric Oxide Synthase Gene Polymorphism and Hyperuricemia in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Tian Jin Yi Yao37, 347349.

  • 91

    ZhangM.LiuH.YangH. Y.WangY. M.SongD. P.LiH. (2005). Relationship of Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase (eNOS) 4a/b Gene Polymorphism with Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Diabetes11 (4), 284285.

  • 92

    ZhangM.SongD. P.LiuH.WangY. M.DuanY.LiH. (2003). The Polymorphism of eNOS Gene Is Associated with Higher Triglyceride Levels. Chin. J. Diab. (1), 3739.

  • 93

    ZhangX.YangZ.ChenX. (2017). Endothelial Nitric Oxide Synthase 27VNTR (4b/4a) Gene Polymorphism and the Risk of Diabetic Microvascular Complications in Chinese Populations. Cell. Mol. Biol. (Noisy-le-grand)63 (10), 5458. 10.14715/cmb/2017.63.10.8

  • 94

    Zheng-juF.Chang-guiL.Zheng-liuX.Zhong-chaoW. (2006). Correlation Between Gene Mutation of Chromosome 7q35 Region and Diabetic Nephropathy. Chin. J. Nephrol.22 (1), 59.

Summary

Keywords

eNOS, polymorphism, T2DM, meta-analysis, BFDP, FPRP

Citation

Wang D, Liu L, Zhang C, Lu W, Wu F and He X (2022) Evaluation of Association Studies and Meta-Analyses of eNOS Polymorphisms in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Risk. Front. Genet. 13:887415. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.887415

Received

01 March 2022

Accepted

27 May 2022

Published

27 June 2022

Volume

13 - 2022

Edited by

Manal S. Fawzy, Suez Canal University, Egypt

Reviewed by

Rami M. Elshazli, Horus University, Egypt

Umamaheswaran Gurusamy, University of California San Francisco, United States

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Wensheng Lu, ; Feifei Wu, ; Xiaofeng He,

This article was submitted to Genetics of Common and Rare Diseases, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics