Table 3.
Association of tPA Alu repeat-I/D polymorphism with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Malaysian subjects.
| tPA Alu repeat I/D polymorphism | Control (n = 131) | Type 2 diabetes mellitus | Total type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 303) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without MetS (n = 76) |
With MetS (n = 227) |
|||
| Risk allele frequency (Insertion) | 0.48 | 0.47 | 0.50 | 0.49 |
| II/ID/DD (frequency) | 0.23/0.49/0.28 | 0.28/0.50/0.22 | 0.26/0.48/0.26 | 0.25/0.49/0.26 |
| Recessive model | Odds ratio | 1.88 | 3.32 | 1.34 |
| 95% CI | 0.81–4.4 | 1.28–8.57 | 0.66–2.9 | |
| P value | 0.14 | 0.013 | 0.39 | |
| Dominant model | Odds ratio | 1.02 | 1.21 | 1.27 |
| 95% CI | 0.44–2.37 | 0.51–2.9 | 0.61–2.65 | |
| P value | 0.96 | 0.66 | 0.52 | |
| Additive model | Odds ratio | 1.28 | 1.48 | 1.24 |
| 95% CI | 0.77–2.13 | 0.87–2.51 | 0.8–1.7 | |
| P value | 0.34 | 0.15 | 0.34 | |
In the additive model, genotype of homozygote for the nonrisk allele D/D (0/0), heterozygote I/D (1/0), and homozygote for the risk allele I/I (1/1) was coded as 0, 1, and 2, respectively. The recessive model was defined as I/I versus (I/D + D/D), dominant model as (I/I + I/D) versus D/D and additive model as D/D, versus I/D versus I/I. The results presented odds ratio, 95% CI and P-value adjusted for age, gender, race, family history of diabetes and BMI as covariates which evaluated by hierarchical logistic regression. MetS: metabolic syndrome.