The association between vitamin D receptor gene polymorphism FokI and type 2 diabetic kidney disease and its molecular mechanism: a case control study.

The role of the vitamin D receptor single nucleotide polymorphism FOKI (VDR-FOKI) (rs2228570) in genetic susceptibility to type 2 diabetic kidney disease (T2DKD) remains uncertain. This study investigated the relationship between VDR-FOKI and T2DKD within the Chinese Plateau Han population and analyzed the underlying mechanisms. A total of 316 subjects were enrolled, including 44 healthy adults, 114 individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and 158 patients with T2DKD. According to the 2023 American Diabetes Association Diabetes Guidelines, patients with T2DKD were categorized into low-medium-risk and high-risk groups based on estimates of glomerular filtration rate and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio. The VDR-FokI genotypes of all participants were identified using the Taqman probe and classified as homozygous mutant genotypes (C/C or FF), heterozygous mutant genotypes (C/T or Ff), and homozygous wild genotypes (T/T or ff). Plasma levels of malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), and superoxide dismutase activity (SOD) were assessed in T2DKD patients with FF and ff genotypes. Additionally, the levels of plasma VDR, GPX4, and P53 were determined using ELISA, while the relative expressions of VDR mRNA, GPX4 mRNA, and TP53 mRNA in whole blood were measured by RT-qPCR. The T2DM patients with the ff genotype exhibited a 2.93-fold increased likelihood of developing T2DKD compared to those with the FF genotype (ORadjusted = 2.93; 95% CI: 1.142-7.513). Additionally, they were 2.01 times more likely to develop T2DKD than individuals with the FF and Ff genotypes (ORadjusted = 2.01; 95% CI: 1.008-4.006). However, no significant differences in VDR-FokI genotype distribution were observed between the healthy control group and the T2DM group, as well as between the low-medium-risk and high-risk groups of T2DKD. Furthermore, T2DKD patients with the ff genotype had significantly higher plasma levels of MDA compared to those with the FF genotype. In contrast, plasma GSH and SOD content was significantly lower in the ff genotype patients (P < 0.05). Additionally, the GPX4 concentration in ff genotype patients was significantly lower than in FF genotype patients [14.88 (11.32,22.39) vs. 12.76 (8.55,13.75), P = 0.037]. Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was observed in the expression of VDRmRNA, GPX4mRNA, TP53mRNA, plasma VDR, and plasma P53. The ff genotype of VDR-FokI is a risk factor for T2DKD, and the potential mechanism may be related to ferroptosis. However, It is not associated with T2DM or the progression of T2DKD.

Zhao Y ，Liu Z ，Feng S ，Yang R ，Ran Z ，Zhu R ，Ma L ，Wang Z ，Chen L ，Han R ... -  《BMC Medical Genomics》

Leptin Rs7799039 polymorphism is associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus Egyptian patients.

Mohamed AA ，Abo-Elmatty DM ，Wahba AS ，Esmail OE ，Salim HSM ，Hegab WSM ，Ghanem MMF ，Riad NY ，Ghaith D ，Daker LI ，Issa S ，Radwan NH ，Sultan E ，Azzam OM ，El-Shoura EAM ... -  《-》

Vitamin D binding protein and receptor prevalence in a large population with periodontitis: single nucleotide polymorphism and transcriptomic profiling.

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the expression of vitamin D receptor (VDR) and binding protein (VDBP) genes, as well as their polymorphisms, in periodontitis. We examined eight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and performed a transcriptome-level bioinformatics analysis to clarify their relationship with periodontitis. To explore VDR and VDBP polymorphisms, 600 subjects were included, including 307 patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) and 293 healthy controls. Genomic DNA was extracted from peripheral venous blood collected from each subject. A MassARRAY system was used to detect SNPs, including rs1544410G/A (BsmI), rs2228570C/T (FokI), rs7975232G/T (ApaI), rs731236T/C (TaqI), rs739837G/T, rs9729G/T, and rs3847987C/A in the VDR gene, and rs7041A/C in the VDBP gene. Then, we analyzed transcriptome sequencing datas of gingival tissues from two single-cell transcriptome sequencing studies to identify differential expression profiles. The objective was to further explore the potential association between VDR gene and gingival tissues in individuals with CP. The regression analysis model revealed a significant relationship between rs739837G/T (P = 0.04) and rs7041A/C (P = 0.03) polymorphisms and CP susceptibility. Subjects carrying the TT genotype of rs739837 showed a decreased risk of developing CP compared to those carrying the GG + GT genotype (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.29-0.99). Individuals carrying the AC + CC genotype of rs7041 showed a reduced risk of developing CP compared to those with the AA genotype (OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.51-0.97). Furthermore, allele C of rs7041 was found to have a protective effect against periodontitis (P = 0.03, OR = 0.75, CI = 0.58-0.98). However, no association was found between CP susceptibility and six other 6 SNPs (rs1544410, rs2228570, rs7975232, rs9729, rs731236, and rs3847987). Differential levels of VDR transcription were observed in gingival tissues during CP. VDR genetic variability and transcriptional expression are significant factors affecting susceptibility to CP. These findings suggested that rs739837 TT in VDR and rs7041 A/C in VDBP may be protective against periodontitis.

Nie Z ，Hu X ，Hu P ，Li P ，Zhou H ，Xie X ... -  《BMC Oral Health》

Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation.

Sex, as a biological construct, and gender, defined as the cultural attitudes and behaviours attributed by society, may be associated with allograft loss, death, cancer, and rejection. Other factors, such as recipient age and donor sex, may modify the association between sex/gender and post-transplant outcomes. We sought to evaluate the prognostic effects of recipient sex and, separately, gender as independent predictors of graft loss, death, cancer, and allograft rejection following kidney or simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. We aimed to evaluate this prognostic effect by defining the relationship between recipient sex or gender and post-transplantation outcomes identifying reasons for variations between sexes and genders, and then quantifying the magnitude of this relationship. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception up to 12 April 2023, through contact with the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Information Specialist, using search terms relevant to this review and no language restrictions. Cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies were included if sex or gender were the primary exposure and clearly defined. Studies needed to focus on our defined outcomes post-transplantation. Sex was defined as the chromosomal, gonadal, and anatomical characteristics associated with the biological sex, and we used the terms "males" and "females". Gender was defined as the attitudes and behaviours that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex, and we used the terms "men" and "women". Two authors independently assessed the references for eligibility, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Whenever appropriate, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to estimate the mean difference in outcomes. The outcomes of interest included the Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology-Kidney Transplant (SONG-Tx) core outcomes, allograft loss, death, cancer (overall incidence and site-specific) and acute or chronic graft rejection. Fifty-three studies (2,144,613 patients; range 59 to 407,963) conducted between 1990 and 2023 were included. Sixteen studies were conducted in the Americas, 12 in Europe, 11 in the Western Pacific, four in the Eastern Mediterranean, three in Africa, two in Southeast Asia, and five across multiple regions. All but one study focused on sex rather than gender as the primary exposure of interest. The number identified as male was 54%; 49 studies included kidney transplant recipients, and four studies included SPK transplant recipients. Twenty-four studies included adults and children, 25 studies included only adults, and four studies included only children. Data from 33 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Among these, six studies presented unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) that assessed the effect of recipient sex on kidney allograft loss. The other studies reported risk ratios (RRs) for the pre-defined outcomes. Notably, the decision to restrict the meta-analyses to unadjusted estimates arose from the variation in covariate adjustment methods across studies, lacking a common set of adjusted variables. Only three studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on graft loss or death, which is likely crucial to evaluating sex differences in post-transplant outcomes. No studies considered the modifying effect of recipient age on cancer incidence or allograft rejection risk. In low certainty evidence, compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in kidney allograft loss post-transplantation (7 studies, 5843 patients: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12; I2 = 73%). This was also observed in studies that included time-to-event analyses (6 studies, 238,937 patients; HR 1.07, 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.20; I2 = 44%). Two recent large registry-based cohort studies that considered the modifying effects of donor sex and recipient age showed that female recipients under 45 years of age had significantly higher graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients in the setting of a male donor. In contrast, female recipients 60 years and older had lower graft loss rates than age-matched male recipients, regardless of donor sex. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in death up to 30 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (13 studies, 60,818 patients: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; I2 = 92%). Studies that considered the modifying effect of recipient age and donor sex showed that female recipients had a higher excess death risk than males under 45 years of age in the setting of a male donor. Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in cancer incidence up to 20 years post-transplantation; however, the evidence is very uncertain (7 studies, 25,076 patients; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; I2 = 60%). Compared with male recipients, being female may make little or no difference in the incidence of acute and chronic kidney allograft rejection up to 15 years post-transplantation (9 studies, 6158 patients: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05; I2 =54%; low certainty evidence). One study assessed gender and reported that when compared with men, women experienced better five-year survival in high (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.87) and middle-income areas (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92), with no difference in low-income areas (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.01). There was considerable uncertainty regarding any association between sex or gender and post-transplant patient-relevant outcomes. This was primarily due to clinical and methodological heterogeneity. The observed clinical heterogeneity between studies could be attributed to diverse patient characteristics within sample populations. As a result of limited sex-stratified demographic data being provided, further investigation of this heterogeneity was constrained. However, factors contributing to this finding may include recipient age, donor age, types, and sex. Methodological heterogeneity was noted with the interchangeable use of sex and gender, outcome misclassification, the use of different measures of effects, inconsistent covariate profiles, and disregard for important effect modification. There is very low to low certainty evidence to suggest there are no differences in kidney and pancreas allograft survival, patient survival, cancer, and acute and chronic allograft rejection between male and female kidney and SPK transplant recipients.

Jayanti S ，Beruni NA ，Chui JN ，Deng D ，Liang A ，Chong AS ，Craig JC ，Foster B ，Howell M ，Kim S ，Mannon RB ，Sapir-Pichhadze R ，Scholes-Robertson NJ ，Strauss AT ，Jaure A ，West L ，Cooper TE ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints. To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test. Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period. Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics. This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2). When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.

Davenport C ，Arevalo-Rodriguez I ，Mateos-Haro M ，Berhane S ，Dinnes J ，Spijker R ，Buitrago-Garcia D ，Ciapponi A ，Takwoingi Y ，Deeks JJ ，Emperador D ，Leeflang MMG ，Van den Bruel A ，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》