Table 2.
Associations between the valid CpG methylation in placenta and risk of FT-LBW
| FGFR2 CpG sites | FT-LBW | FT-NBW | Odds ratio for per standard deviation increment in DNA methylation (95% CI)a | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean (SD) | N | Mean (SD) | |||
| All subjects | ||||||
| CpG 2 | 65 | 0.35 (0.20) | 65 | 0.37 (0.22) | 0.95 (0.66, 1.37) | 0.77 |
| CpG 3.4 | 82 | 0.37 (0.08) | 78 | 0.36 (0.08) | 1.09 (0.78, 1.52) | 0.62 |
| CpG 5 | 73 | 0.48 (0.13) | 65 | 0.48 (0.13) | 1.09 (0.76, 1.55) | 0.64 |
| CpG 7 | 69 | 0.19 (0.13) | 64 | 0.18 (0.11) | 1.13 (0.76, 1.67) | 0.54 |
| CpG 11 | 69 | 0.39 (0.11) | 55 | 0.35 (0.09) | 1.64 (1.07, 2.52) | 0.02 |
| Girls | ||||||
| CpG 2 | 40 | 0.33 (0.20) | 35 | 0.39 (0.23) | 0.85 (0.52, 1.37) | 0.49 |
| CpG 3.4 | 49 | 0.37 (0.08) | 44 | 0.36 (0.07) | 1.35 (0.84, 2.18) | 0.49 |
| CpG 5 | 44 | 0.49 (0.10) | 39 | 0.47 (0.14) | 1.19 (0.73, 1.95) | 0.49 |
| CpG 7 | 44 | 0.20 (0.15) | 34 | 0.18 (0.11) | 1.23 (0.72, 2.09) | 0.45 |
| CpG 11 | 43 | 0.40 (0.11) | 32 | 0.34 (0.11) | 1.92 (1.07, 3.43) | 0.02 |
| Boys | ||||||
| CpG 2 | 25 | 0.37 (0.19) | 30 | 0.33 (0.22) | 1.32 (0.68, 2.57) | 0.42 |
| CpG 3.4 | 33 | 0.36 (0.09) | 34 | 0.37 (0.08) | 0.75 (0.43, 1.29) | 0.29 |
| CpG 5 | 29 | 0.47 (0.15) | 26 | 0.49 (0.12) | 0.84 (0.48, 1.47) | 0.54 |
| CpG 7 | 25 | 0.18 (0.10) | 30 | 0.18 (0.12) | 0.86 (0.42, 1.75) | 0.67 |
| CpG 11 | 26 | 0.38 (0.12) | 23 | 0.36 (0.05) | 1.14 (0.52, 2.48) | 0.74 |
aIn all subjects, the models were adjusted for maternal age, education, family monthly income, ETS exposure during pregnancy, gestational age and newborn’s sex. In girls and boys, the models were adjusted for all the covariates mentioned above, except the newborn’s sex