English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Accumulating epidemiological evidence indicates that the quantitative changes in human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) copy number could affect the genetic susceptibility of malignancies in a tumor-specific manner, but the results are still elusive. To provide a more precise estimation on the association between mtDNA copy number and risk of diverse malignancies, a meta-analysis was conducted by calculating the pooled odds ratios (OR) and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). A total of 36 case-control studies involving 11,847 cases and 15,438 controls were finally included in the meta-analysis. Overall analysis of all studies suggested no significant association between mtDNA content and cancer risk (OR = 1.044, 95% CI = 0.866–1.260, P = 0.651). Subgroup analyses by cancer types showed an obvious positive association between mtDNA content and lymphoma and breast cancer (OR = 1.645, 95% CI = 1.117–2.421, P = 0.012; OR = 1.721, 95% CI = 1.130–2.622, P = 0.011, respectively), and a negative association for hepatic carcinoma. Stratified analyses by other confounding factors also found increased cancer risk in people with drinking addiction. Further analysis using studies of quartiles found that populations with the highest mtDNA content may be under more obvious risk of melanoma and that Western populations were more susceptible than Asians.

Altered mitochondrial DNA copy number contributes to human cancer risk: evidence from an updated meta-analysis