Table 4.
Comparison between the two studied subgroups according to rs5749201 and rs886471.
| Genotype | LN (n = 70) |
Non-LN® (n = 75) |
χ2 (p) |
p 0 | OR (LL–UL 95% C.I) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs5749201 | |||||
| Genotype | |||||
| TT® | 2 (2.9%) | 13 (17.3%) | 42.500 * (<0.001) |
1.0 | |
| TA | 9 (12.9%) | 39 (52.0%) | 0.631 | 1.50 (0.286–7.856) | |
| AA | 59 (84.3%) | 23 (30.7%) | <0.001 * | 16.67 (3.487–79.72) | |
|
Dominant TA + AA vs. TT® |
68/2 | 62/13 | 8.181 * (0.004) |
0.012 * | 7.129 (1.547–32.86) |
|
Recessive AA vs. TT + TA® |
59/11 | 23/52 | 42.365 * (<0.001) |
<0.001 * | 12.13 (5.397–27.25) |
| Allele | (n = 140) | (n = 150) | |||
| T® | 13 (9.3%) | 65 (43.3%) | 42.693 * (<0.001) |
1.0 | |
| A | 127 (90.7%) | 85 (56.7%) | <0.001 * | 7.471 (3.878–14.393) | |
| rs886471 | |||||
| Genotype | |||||
| TT® | 2 (2.9%) | 14 (18.7%) | 36.175 * (<0.001) |
1.0 | |
| TG | 12 (17.1%) | 38 (50.7%) | 0.336 | 2.211 (0.439–11.142) | |
| GG | 56 (80.0%) | 23 (30.7%) | <0.001 * | 17.04 (3.585–81.03) | |
|
Dominant TG + GG vs. TT ® |
68/2 | 61/14 | 9.218 * (0.002) |
0.008 * | 7.803 (1.704–35.73) |
|
Recessive GG vs. TT + TG® |
56/14 | 23/52 | 35.533 * (<0.001) |
<0.001 * | 9.043 (4.212–19.42) |
| Allele | (n = 140) | (n = 150) | |||
| T® | 16 (11.4%) | 66 (44.0%) | 37.880 * (<0.001) |
1.0 | |
| G | 124 (88.6%) | 84 (56.0%) | <0.001 * | 6.089 (3.301–11.234) | |
| Haplotype | (n = 140) | (n = 150) | |||
| TT® | 12 (8.6%) | 61 (40.7%) | 45.972 * (MC p < 0.001) |
1.0 | |
| TG | 1 (0.7%) | 4 (2.7%) | 0.837 | 1.271 (0.130–12.388) | |
| AT | 4 (2.9%) | 5 (3.3%) | 0.058 | 4.067 (0.951–17.392) | |
| AG | 123 (87.9%) | 80 (53.3%) | <0.001 * | 7.816 (3.960–15.426) |
®: Reference group; OR: Odd’s ratio; C.I: Confidence interval; LL: Lower limit; UL: Upper Limit; χ2: Chi square test; MC: Monte Carlo; p0: p value for binary logistic regression; p: p value for comparing between the two studied groups; *: Statistically significant at p ≤ 0.05.