Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Insertion/Deletion Polymorphism with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: a Meta-Analysis of 26 Case-Control Studies

Abstract

Objective Previous studies investigating the association between angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) risk has provided inconsistent results. The aim of our study was to assess the association between the ACE I/D polymorphism and risk of RPL.

Methods All studies published up to January 30, 2018 on the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with RPL were identified by searching the PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Google scholar databases.

Results A total of 26 case-control studies with 3,140 RPL cases and 3,370 controls were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL risk under the allele model (I versus D: odds ratio [OR] = 0.538, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.451–0.643, p ≤ 0.001), the homozygote model (II versus DD: OR = 0.766, 95% CI = 0.598–0.981, p = 0.035) and the recessive model (II versus ID + DD: OR = 0.809, 95% CI = 0.658–0.994, p = 0.044). Subgroup analysis by ethnicity showed that there was a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and increased risk of RPL in Caucasian and West-Asian populations, but not in East-Asians. When stratified by number of recurrent miscarriages (RMs), a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and increased risk of RPL was detected in the group of studies with ≥ 2 RMs, but not in studies with ≥ 3 RMs.

Conclusion The meta-analysis suggests that ACE I/D polymorphism is associated with increased risk of RPL. The ACE I/D polymorphism may be a risk factor for RPL in Caucasian and West-Asian populations, but not in East-Asians.

Keywords

miscarriage - pregnancy loss - angiotensin-converting enzyme - polymorphism - meta-analysis

Introduction

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is a surprisingly common occurrence, which traditionally is defined as 3 or more (≥ 3) consecutive miscarriages before 20 weeks of pregnancy.[1] [2] However, this definition is not used consistently, and pregnancy losses at higher gestational ages are also, in some literatures, classified as miscarriage instead of stillbirth or preterm neonatal death.[3] It has been estimated that 1 to 3% of couples suffer from recurrent miscarriages.[4]

The etiology of RPL is still unclear and there is a lot of controversy regarding its diagnosis and treatment.[5] It is well documented that RPL is a multifactorial disorder involving the interaction of genetic, maternal and environmental factors.[6] [7] An increasing number of genetic association studies are performed to determine the genetic background of RPL.[8] To date, more than 30 putative major genes involved in immunity (PP14, Annexin II, PIBF, and HLA-DRB1) and angiogenesis (TGF-β, VEGF, TIMP-1, MMP-2, MMP-9, ACE) genes for RPL have been identified.[9] [10] [11]

Angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) is a zinc metallopeptidase that converts angiotensin I to angiotensin II.[12] The ACE plays an important role in the modulation of vascular homeostasis, inflammation and angiogenesis.[13] Based on its biological functions, the insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism of the ACE gene can be seen as a candidate locus for RPL.[14] Angiotensin I-converting enzyme is related with plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) activity, which is a key regulator in embryo implantation.[15] The human ACE gene is located on chromosome 17q23, and it consists of 26 exons and 25 introns.[16] [17] One of the well-known polymorphisms in the ACE gene is the 287-bp insertion/deletion (or named repetitive element) in intron 16 (ACE I/D).[15] [16] Angiotensin converting enzyme I/D polymorphism (dbSNP rs4646994) is actually not a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at all; instead, it is an I/D of an Alu repeat sequence in an intron of the ACE gene. The ACE I/D polymorphism is associated with ACE activity and levels in plasma and tissues.[17] [18] It has been shown that individuals with the D allele have higher serum ACE activity than those with the I allele. Therefore, ACE enzyme activity is increased in homozygotes for the DD genotype, intermediate in heterozygotes (ID) and decreased in homozygotes for I (II).[19] Emerging evidence has shown that the ACE D allele leads to increased expression of PAI-1, which can increase the risk of thrombotic events and enhances the production of angiotensin II from angiotensin I.[16] [17]

Accumulating studies have assessed the association between this polymorphism and RPL, but the results are unconvincing and unreliable, which may be partly due to the relatively small samples and different ethnic subgroups. The most recent meta-analysis was conducted in 2013, and it aimed at investigating the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with the risk of RPL.[16] When taking into account the 11 eligible case-control studies, the results indicate that ACE I/D polymorphism is significantly associated with the risk of RPL in the overall population, but not in Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations. In the past 2 years, several other case-control studies conducted to evaluate the effect of ACE polymorphism on RPL provided some new data and diverse conclusions.[15] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Accordingly, we performed the present systematic review and meta-analysis with more eligible studies to investigate the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and the risk of RPL.

Methods

Search Strategy

A systematic search of eligible studies on the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with RPL susceptibility was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, the Chinese Biomedical Literature database (CBM), and the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI) up to the January 30, 2018. The following terms were included in the search: (Recurrent pregnancy loss OR recurrent miscarriage OR habitual abortion OR miscarriage OR fetal loss OR RPL) AND (Angiotensin-converting enzyme OR ACE OR SERPINE1) AND (insertion/deletion polymorphism OR I/D polymorphism OR rs4646994) AND (single nucleotide polymorphisms OR SNPs OR polymorphism OR mutation OR variant OR genotype). To minimize potential publication bias, the extracted publications were not limited to English. Additionally, the references list of the retrieved case-control studies, previous meta-analysis, review articles and clinical trials were manually searched for more additional original articles. If there were multiple reports of the same study or overlapping data, only the study with the largest sample sizes or the most recent one was included to the current meta-analysis.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included based on the following criteria: (1) only full-text and published studies; (2) studies with case-control or cohort design; (3) a study evaluated the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with RPL risk; (4) available genotypes frequencies of ACE I/D polymorphism were provided to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the study was not conducted on RPL; (2) studies on secondary causes for RPL; (3) family-based linkage studies; (4) abstracts, case reports, and review articles; (5) studies with only RPL cases (not including healthy individuals); (6) studies on the other polymorphisms of the ACE gene; (7) studies without detail genotype frequencies, which were unable to calculate ORs; and (8) duplicate publications of data from the same study.

Data Extraction

Two authors independently extracted the following data from each eligible study according to the inclusion criteria: first author, year of publication, country of origin, ethnicity, total number of cases and controls, the frequencies of genotypes, minor allele frequencies (MAFs), and Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (HWE) test in control subjects. Any discrepancy between these two authors was resolved by reaching a consensus through discussion or the involvement of a third author who made the final decision through discussions.

Quality Assessment

Two authors performed the quality assessment of the included studies, which was adjusted from the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for case-control studies ([Table 1]), and solved disagreement through discussion. In this scale, six items, including the selection of patients with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss, source of controls, comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis, sample size, quality control of genotyping methods, and HWE, were carefully checked. The quality assessment values ranged from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating a better quality of the study.

Table 1 Scale for methodological quality assessment

Criteria	Score
1. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of patients with unexplained recurrent spontaneous abortion
Adequate criteria would include experienced clinical and laboratory examinations	2
Inadequate criteria would include the patients' history review as the only evidence	1
Not described	0
2. Source of controls
Community controls without history of disease	2
Hospital controls	1
Not described	0
3. Comparability of cases and controls on the basis of the design or analysis
Study controls for selecting the most important factor	2
Patient medical record	1
Not described	0
4. Sample size
≥ 200	2
100–199	1
< 100	0
5. Quality control of genotyping methods
Repetition of partial/total tested samples with a different method	1
Repetition of partial/total tested samples with the same method	0.5
Not described	0
6. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE)
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in control subjects	1
Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium in control subjects	0

Statistical Analysis

The association between ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL was assessed using crude odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Five different genetic models were constructed to determine pooled ORs in accordance with the assumed genetic effect of the D allele including: allele model (I versus D), homozygous model (II versus DD), heterozygous model (ID versus DD), dominant model (II + ID versus DD) and recessive model (II versus ID + DD). The Z-test was used to assess the pooled OR with the significance set at p < 0.05. Between-studies heterogeneity was evaluated by the Cochran C²-based Q test (heterogeneity was considered statistically significant if p < 0.10) and I² statistics.[20] An I² value of 0% represents no heterogeneity; values of 25%, 50%, 75%, or more represent low, moderate, high, and extreme heterogeneity, respectively.[21] The random-effects model (based on the DerSimonian and Laird method)[22] was used when heterogeneity existed among studies; otherwise the fixed-effects model (based on the Mantel-Haenszel method)[23] was applied. Departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in healthy subjects was examined using the Chi-square test, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Furthermore, to explore the source of between-study heterogeneity, subgroup analyses by number of recurrent miscarriages (RMs) (≥ 2 or ≥ 3), ethnicity, and HWE status were performed. The one-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability and liability of the meta-analysis, namely, a single study in the meta-analysis was omitted each time to reflect the influence of the individual dataset to the pooled OR. Publication bias was examined by using a funnel plot and Egger's linear regression, and a p < 0.05 was considered significant.[24] [25] All the statistical analyses were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software version 2.2 (Biostat, USA). All p-values were two-tailed with a significant level set at 0.05.

Results

Characteristics of Eligible Studies

The study selection and inclusion processes are shown in [Fig. 1]. After a comprehensive literature search, a total of 216 publications were identified. Of these studies, x 97 were excluded in the first screening as duplicates or not relevant, leaving 119 studies for further selection. Among the remaining studies, 93 articles were excluded because they were review articles, letters to editors, previous meta-analyses, not relevant to ACE I/D polymorphism, not case-control studies, evaluated other diseases instead of RPL, and case reports. Finally, a total of 26 case-control studies with 3,140 RPL cases and 3,370 controls were included in the present meta-analysis.[14] [15] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] The characteristics of the selected studies are summarized in [Table 1]. Of these, 10 case-control studies involving 1,391 cases and 1,292 controls were conducted in Caucasians,[25] [26] [28] [31] [36] [37] [40] [41] [44] [48] 10 case-control studies in the west-Asians,[15] [27] [29] [32] [33] [39] [42] [45] [47] with 984 cases and 1,108 cases, 4 case-control studies in the East-Asians,[14] [30] [34] with 670 cases and 880 controls, 1 study involving 55 cases and 50 controls in Latinos,[43] and 1 study with 40 cases and 40 controls in Africans.[46] The countries of these studies included Italy, Germany, Iran, USA, India, China, Gaza, Korea, Turkey, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Slovenia, Mexico, and Greece. All the genotype distributions of controls were in agreement with HWE for ACE I/D polymorphism except for six studies.[15] [28] [29] [32] [36] [45] Therefore, 20 of 26 case-control studies were defined as high-quality studies ([Tables 1], [2] and [3]).

Table 2 Main characteristics of studies included in this meta-analysis

First Author (Year)	Country (Ethnicity)	RM (no.)	Case/Control	Cases					Controls					MAFs	HWE	Quality
				Genotype			Allele		Genotype			Allele
				DD	ID	II	D		DD	ID	II	D	I
Fatini et al. (2000)[26]	Italy (Caucasian)	≥3	59/70	28	21	10	77	6	20	30	20	70	70	0.500	0.231	6
Buchholz et al. (2003)[27]	Germany (Caucasian)	≥2	184/127	59	83	42	201	7	30	71	26	131	123	0.484	0.179	7
Soltan Ghoraei et al. (2007)[28]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥2	120/112	38	62	29	128	7	25	47	22	116	108	0.484	0.992	7
Goodman et al. (2008)[29]	USA (Caucasian)	≥2	120/84	34	55	31	123	6	28	34	40	74	94	0.558	0.001	6
Vettriselvi et al. (2008)[30]	India (West-Asian)	≥2	104/120	23	39	42	85	6	27	38	55	92	148	0.616	≤0.001	6
Pan (2009)[31]	China (East-Asian)	≥2	190/193	29	100	61	158	7	23	89	81	135	251	0.650	0.847	7
Bukreeva et al. (2009)[32]	Germany (Caucasian)	≥2	314/553	90	164	58	346	8	159	254	140	572	534	0.482	0.059	8
Al Sallout and Sharif (2010)[33]	Gaza (West-Asian)	≥3	100/100	49	9	42	140	6	54	12	34	142	58	0.400	≤0.001	6
Bagheri et al. (2010)[34]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥3	50/63	17	26	7	60	5	24	27	12	75	51	0.404	0.380	5
Choi et al. (2011)[35]	Korea (East-Asian)	≥3	126/251	41	50	35	132	6	44	130	77	218	284	0.565	0.391	6
Zhang et al. (2011)[14]	China (East-Asian)	≥2	127/132	21	49	57	91	6	8	34	90	50	214	0.810	0.064	6
Aarabi et al. (2011)[36]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥3	58/94	19	30	14	62	5	25	47	22	97	91	0.484	0.992	5
Corbo et al. (2011)[37]	Italy (Caucasian)	≥2	18/74	12	6	0	30	4	18	22	34	58	90	0.608	0.001	4
Ozdemir et al. (2012)[38]	Turkey (Caucasian)	≥2	327/106	121	145	61	387	8	21	51	34	93	119	0.561	0.812	8
Poursadegh Zonouzi (2013)[39]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥2	89/50	23	31	35	77	5	7	28	15	42	58	0.580	0.135	5
Kim et al. (2014)[40]	Korea (East-Asian)	≥2	227/304	34	110	83	178	8	52	148	104	252	356	0.585	0.957	8
Yalcintepe et al. (2015)[41]	Turkey (Caucasian)	≥2	20/22	9	7	4	30	5	8	9	5	25	19	0.431	0.435	5
Shakarami et al. (2015)[15]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥2	100/100	34	60	6	128	5	52	48	0	152	48	0.240	0.001	5
Kurzawińska et al. (2016)[42]	Poland (Caucasian)	≥2	152/180	40	80	32	160	6	52	84	44	188	172	0.477	0.384	6
Al-Mukaynizi et al. (2016)[43]	Saudi Arabia (West-Asian)	≥3	61/59	40	18	3	98	6	32	25	2	89	29	0.245	0.272	6
Hussian et al. (2016)[44]	Sudan (African)	≥3	40/40	23	14	3	60	6	37	3	0	77	3	0.037	0.805	6
Pereza et al. (2016)[45]	Slovenia (Caucasian)	≥3	149/149	43	75	31	161	7	55	62	32	172	126	0.422	0.071	7
Fazelnia et al. (2016)[46]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥2	100/100	29	40	31	98	6	44	33	23	121	79	0.395	0.001	6
López-Jiménez et al. (2016)[47]	Mexico (Latinos)	≥3	55/50	10	34	11	54	6	10	19	21	39	61	0.610	0.154	6
Heidari et al. (2017)[48]	Iran (West-Asian)	≥3	202/210	51	102	49	204	8	70	99	41	239	181	0.431	0.573	8
Chatzidimitriou et al. (2017)[49]	Greece (Caucasian)	≥2	48/27	21	23	4	56	6	8	10	9	26	28	0.518	0.179	6

Abbreviations: HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; MAF, minor Allele frequency; RM, recurrent miscarriage.

Table 3 Results of meta-analysis for angiotensin-converting enzyme deletion/instertion polymorphism and recurrent pregnancy loss

Subgroup	Genetic model	Type of model	Heterogeneity		Odds ratio				Publication Bias
			I2 (%)	PH	OR	95% CI	Z-test	POR	PBeggs	PEggers
Overall (n = 26)	I versus D	Random	80.49	≤0.001	0.538	0.451–0.643	−6.857	≤0.001	0.964	0.934
	II versus DD	Random	55.47	0.001	0.766	0.598–0.981	−2.109	0.035	0.980	0.991
	ID versus DD	Random	60.21	≤0.001	0.937	0.752–1.168	−0.580	0.562	0.535	0.649
	II + ID versus DD	Random	73.79	≤0.001	0.882	0.687–1.133	−0.981	0.327	0.385	0.507
	II versus ID + DD	Random	57.96	≤0.001	0.809	0.658–0.994	−2.013	0.044	0.441	0.618
RM no.
≥2 (n = 16)	I versus D	Random	82.65	≤0.001	0.479	0.383–0.600	−6.427	≤0.001	0.558	0.433
	II versus DD	Random	61.52	≤0.001	0.709	0.520–0.966	−2.182	0.029	0.710	0.457
	ID versus DD	Random	46.08	0.020	0.939	0.755–1.167	−0.570	0.569	0.091	0.125
	II + ID versus DD	Random	72.93	≤0.001	0.825	0.618–1.101	−1.306	0.191	0.091	0.113
	II versus ID + DD	Random	66.47	≤0.001	0.754	0.574–0.990	−2.030	0.042	0.650	0.921
≥3 (n = 10)	I versus D	Random	73.55	≤0.001	0.656	0.459–1.012	−2.937	0.086	1.000	0.401
	II versus DD	Random	52.03	0.027	0.911	0.612–1.355	−0.459	0.646	1.000	0.967
	ID versus DD	Random	70.88	≤0.001	1.029	0.672–1.577	0.132	0.895	0.474	0.598
	II + ID versus DD	Random	73.33	≤0.001	1.055	0.706–1.577	0.261	0.794	1.000	0.611
	II versus ID + DD	Random	33.60	0.139	0.932	0.699–1.244	−0.478	0.633	0.720	0.861
By Ethnicity
Caucasian (n = 10)	I versus D	Random	79.11	≤0.001	0.753	0.574–0.988	−2.050	0.040	0.076	0.049
	II versus DD	Random	56.28	0.019	0.640	0.440–0.930	−2.342	0.019	0.251	0.194
	ID versus DD	Random	58.75	0.013	0.866	0.630–1.192	−0.883	0.377	0.348	0.196
	II + ID versus DD	Random	73.93	≤0.001	0.643	0.439–0.943	−2.262	0.024	0.076	0.064
	II versus ID + DD	Random	49.54	0.044	0.661	0.492–0.888	−2.746	0.006	0.465	0.357
West-Asian (n = 10)	I versus D	Random	67.24	0.001	0.706	0.557–0.895	−2.878	0.004	0.591	0.821
	II versus DD	Fixed	14.57	0.309	1.226	0.950–1.583	1.569	0.117	0.858	0.842
	ID versus DD	Fixed	46.75	0.051	1.144	0.923–1.418	1.231	0.218	0.073	0.043
	II + ID versus DD	Fixed	41.65	0.080	1.361	1.122–1.650	3.128	0.002	0.107	0.041
	II versus ID + DD	Fixed	0.00	0.569	1.215	0.978–1.511	1.756	0.079	0.720	0.322
East-Asian (n = 4)	I versus D	Random	86.95	≤0.001	0.348	0.228–0.532	−4.884	0.096	0.289	0.130
	II versus DD	Random	73.96	0.009	0.574	0.307–1.072	−1.741	0.082	0.308	0.129
	ID versus DD	Random	63.20	0.043	0.709	0.426–1.180	−1.323	0.186	0.734	0.746
	II + ID versus DD	Random	72.80	0.012	0.626	0.359–1.090	−1.654	0.098	0.734	0.442
	II versus ID + DD	Random	75.49	0.007	0.713	0.460–1.106	−1.509	0.131	0.308	0.201
By HWE Status
Not deviated (n = 20)	I versus D	Random	69.23	≤0.001	0.847	0.720–0.997	−2.000	0.046	0.704	0.797
	II versus DD	Random	40.95	0.036	0.693	0.545–0.881	−2.994	0.003	1.000	0.885
	ID versus DD	Random	61.17	≤0.001	0.856	0.666–1.100	−1.213	0.225	0.761	0.752
	II + ID versus DD	Random	69.41	≤0.001	0.857	0.657–1.116	−1.145	0.252	1.000	0.944
	II versus ID + DD	Random	47.51	0.013	0.787	0.643–0.964	−2.316	0.021	0.595	0.503
Deviated (n = 6)	I versus D	Random	85.14	≤0.001	0.901	0.559–1.451	−0.430	0.667	1.000	0.128
	II versus DD	Random	70.76	0.004	1.063	0.528–2.141	0.171	0.864	0.707	0.801
	ID versus DD	Random	32.83	0.190	1.296	0.895–1.875	1.374	0.169	0.008	0.002
	II + ID versus DD	Random	82.65	≤0.001	0.909	0.474–1.744	−0.286	0.775	0.060	0.014
	II versus ID + DD	Random	77.03	0.001	0.866	0.431–1.740	−0.404	0.686	0.452	0.931

Abbreviations: HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; RM, recurrent miscarriage.

Fig. 1 The study selection and inclusion process.

Quantitative Synthesis

[Table 2] listed the main results of the meta-analysis of ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL risk. When all the eligible studies were pooled into the meta-analysis of ACE I/D polymorphism, a significant association was found between ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL under the allele model (I versus D: OR = 0.538, 95% CI = 0.451–0.643, p ≤ 0.001), the homozygote model (II versus DD: OR = 0.766, 95% CI = 0.598–0.981, p = 0.035) ([Fig. 2A]) and recessive model (II versus ID + DD: OR = 0.809, 95% CI = 0.658–0.994, p = 0.044) ([Fig. 2B]).

Fig. 2 Forest plot of the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL. (A) represents the homozygote model (II versus DD); (B) represents the recessive model (II versus ID + DD).

The studies were further stratified on the basis of number of RM, ethnicity and studies HWE status. When stratified by number of RM, a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and increased risk of RPL was detected in the group of studies with ≥ 2 pregnancy loss under the allele model (I versus D: OR = 0.479, 95% CI = 0.383–0.600, p ≤0 .001), the homozygote model (II versus DD: OR = 0.709, 95% CI = 0.520–0.966, p = 0.029) and the recessive model (II versus ID + DD: OR = 0.754, 95% CI = 0.574–0.990, p = 0.042), but not in studies with ≥ 3 RM. When stratified by ethnicity, a significant association was established between ACE I/D polymorphism and increased risk of RPL among Caucasians (allele model: I versus D: OR = 0.753, 95% CI = 0.574–0.988, p = 0.040; homozygote model: OR = 0.640, 95% CI = 0.440–0.930, p = 0.019; dominant model: II + ID versus DD: OR = 0.643, 95% CI = 0.439–0.943, p = 0.024; and recessive model II versus ID + DD: OR = 0.661, 95% CI = 0.492–0.888, p = 0.006) and West-Asians (dominant model: II versus ID + DD: OR = 1.361, 95% CI = 1.122–1.650, p = 0.002). In contrast, no significant association was observed in the East-Asian subgroup under any of the genetic models ([Table 3]). Subgroup analysis of studies by HWE status showed that there was a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and increased risk of RPL under the homozygote model (II versus DD: OR = 0.693, 95% CI = 0.545–0.881, p = 0.003) and the recessive model (II versus ID + DD: OR = 0.787, 95% CI = 0.643–0.964, p = 0.021) in studies in accordance with HWE.

Sensitivity Analyses

Sensitivity analysis was conducted to confirm the stability and liability of the meta-analysis by sequential omission of each eligible study. The results showed that the significance of the OR was not materially changed by any single study (data not showed), indicating the stability of our results. In addition, after the removal of studies with low quality (departure from the HWE), the corresponding pooled ORs were not significantly changed.

Test of Heterogeneity

As shown in [Table 3], there was a significant moderate to high heterogeneity among these studies for ACE I/D polymorphism in overall comparisons under all five genetic models, that is, allele (I² = 80.49%, P_H ≤ 0.001), homozygote (I² = 55.47%, P_H ≤ 0.001), heterozygote (I² = 60.21%, P_H ≤ 0.001), dominant (I² = 73.79%, P_H ≤ 0.001) and recessive model (I² = 57.96%, P_H ≤ 0.001). Then, we assessed the source of heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. The I² decreased obviously and the p value exceeded 0.05 among West-Asian studies under four genetic models, namely, homozygote (I² = 14.57%, P_H= 0.0309), heterozygote (I² = 46.75%, P_H= 0.051), dominant (I² = 41.65%, P_H= 0.080) and recessive model (I² = 0.00, P_H= 0.569), indicating that these studies were the major source of heterogeneity. However, we found that studies conducted in Caucasians and East-Asians, number of RM, and studies' quality did not contribute to heterogeneity ([Table 3]).

Publication Bias

Publication bias of the selected articles was assessed by the funnel plot and Egger's linear regression. The shape of the funnel plot did not reveal any evidence of obvious asymmetry ([Fig. 3A] and [B]). Similarly, no evidence of publication bias was observed by the Egger's test ([Table 3]).

Fig. 3 Funnel plot for publication bias in the meta-analysis of the ACE I/D polymorphism and RPL. (A) represents the allele model (I versus D); and (B) represents the dominant model (II + ID versus DD).

Minor Allele Frequency (MAF)

The minor allele frequencies (MAFs) of the ACE I/D polymorphism by ethnicity are presented in [Tables 1] and [2]. The allele and genotype distributions of ACE I/D polymorphism exhibited ethnic variations. The ACE I allele frequency in the Caucasian, West-Asian and East-Asian populations were 51.50% (42.20–60.80%), 42.80% (24.0–61.60%), and 68.75% (56.50–81.0%), respectively. Therefore, the ACE I allele frequency in East-Asian populations was higher than in the other populations ([Fig. 3]).

Discussion

The present meta-analysis was conducted to systematically identify the association between ACE I/D polymorphism with risk of RPL. In the present meta-analysis, a significant association of the ACE I/D polymorphism with risk of RPL was found under the homozygote and recessive genetic models, and in subgroup analysis, among the Caucasian and West-Asian populations. However, for East-Asians, the results indicated that the ACE I/D polymorphism was not associated with increased risk of RPL. The inconsistent results between East-Asians on subgroup analysis and pooled estimates may be caused by genetic diversity and environmental factors among different ethnicities. Furthermore, as RPL is a multifactorial condition, beside genetic factors, internal and external factors play a major role in RPL etiology. Therefore, this discrepancy might be due to other factors, such as untreated hypothyroidism, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, certain uterine anatomic abnormalities, and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS). Moreover, stratified analysis according to number of RM revealed a significantly increased risk of RPL with the ACE I/D polymorphism in those studies with ≥ 2 RM, but not in studies with ≥ 3 RM. This finding is possible because the number of studies with ≥ 2 RM included to the meta-analysis was higher than the number of studies with ≥ 3 RM. Two previous meta-analyses by Su et al[16] and Yang et al[17] also estimated the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and risk of RPL. Their results have confirmed that ACE I/D polymorphism is associated with the risk of RPL in overall estimates. However, their result was basically inconsistent with the present meta-analysis results, which show that ACE I/D polymorphism may not contribute to the susceptibility of RPL in Caucasians.

To further interpret the present meta-analysis results, it is necessary to clarify the difference between this meta-analysis and the previous one. More recently, Su et al[16] performed a meta-analysis including 11 studies with 1,275 RPL cases and 2,049 controls; the study discussed the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and the risk of RPL.[16] Their results showed a significant association between ACE I/D polymorphism and risk of RPL. In addition, their results suggested the ACE I/D polymorphism might not increase the risk of RPL in Caucasian and non-Caucasian populations. However, they only enrolled 11 case-control studies and discussed the RPL risk only under 2 dominant and recessive genetic models. Hence, it may significantly affect their overall results and subgroup results. By contrast, the present meta-analysis included 26 relevant case-control studies with higher numbers of the cases and controls and discussed the RPL risk under all 5 genetic models. In addition, we evaluated the association by quality of studies, while the prior meta-analysis did not conduct any study quality assessment. Besides, the meta-analysis by Yang et al,[17] in 2012, reported that the ACE I/D polymorphism is associated with an increased risk of RPL in Asians and not in Caucasians, but their meta-analysis only included 9 studies with 1,264 RPL cases and 845 controls. To the best of our knowledge, the present meta-analysis was the most comprehensive meta-analysis on the association of ACE I/D polymorphism and the risk of RPL, which can provide results with greater statistical power. Moreover, with newly added case-control studies, we performed subgroup analyses to further interpret the results.

Between-study heterogeneity is a common and potential problem when interpreting the results of all meta-analyses, which should be explored in the meta-analysis.[50] [51] [52] There are several factors responsible for such heterogeneity, such as the diverse genotype distribution of ACE I/D polymorphism in different ethnicity, sample sizes, genetic backgrounds for cases and controls, diversity in study designs, inclusion criteria, and genotyping methods.[53] In the current study, significant heterogeneity was found in the association of ACE I/D polymorphism with RPL risk under all genetic models. Therefore, we have performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explore the sources of between-study heterogeneity. The results suggested that ethnicity was not the source of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the removing of any single study did not have significant impact on the overall meta-analysis estimate. Moreover, the funnel plot did not reflect considerable asymmetry and the Egger's test also indicated no obvious publication bias. All these made the present meta-analysis results reliable to some extent.

The present meta-analysis had several strengths. Most importantly, it the biggest, most comprehensive and most recent meta-analysis of the association between ACE and the risk of RPL. Therefore, it was more powerful than previous cohort and case-control studies. Even though there were 26 case-control studies in our meta-analysis, its limitations should be pointed out. First, the number of studies was moderate, especially in subgroup analyses, thus limiting the interpretation of results in our analysis. Second, the study population in our meta-analysis focused on Caucasians and Asians. In the present meta-analysis, the sample size and numbers of studies in African groups and mixed groups were not adequate to evaluate any association. Thus, the conclusion may not be suitable for Africans. Second, there was significant between-study heterogeneity in all genetic models. Heterogeneity is a problem that may affect the precision of overall results. Third, the meta-analysis was based on data that had not been adjusted for the main confounding variables, such as age, gestation age at miscarriage, number of previous abortions, environmental factors and so on, which might have caused serious confounding bias. To provide a more reliable estimation of the association, more studies with a better design and a larger sample size are needed. Finally, gene–gene, gene–environment, or even different polymorphism loci of the ACE gene were not fully addressed in the meta-analysis due to lack of relevant data.

Conclusion

In conclusion, although there was significant heterogeneity in the studies included, our meta-analysis suggests that ACE I/D polymorphism is associated with increased risk of RPL, especially in the Caucasian and West-Asian populations. However, more studies, well-designed and with a large sample, are needed to give a more reliable estimation of the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and the risk of RPL.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Seyed Mahdi Kalantar for her assisting in data collection.

• References

• 1 Ford HB, Schust DJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2 (02) 76-83
• 2 Neamatzadeh H, Ramazani V, Kalantar SM, Ebrahimi M, Sheikhha MH. Serum immune reactivity against β2-Glycoprotein-I and anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic auto-antibodies by ELI-P-Complex Screening Technology in recurrent miscarriage. Minerva Ginecol 2016; 68 (03) 243-249
• 3 Oliver-Williams C, Fleming M, Wood AM, Smith G. Previous miscarriage and the subsequent risk of preterm birth in Scotland, 1980-2008: a historical cohort study. BJOG 2015; 122 (11) 1525-1534 . Doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13276
• 4 Rull K, Nagirnaja L, Laan M. Genetics of recurrent miscarriage: challenges, current knowledge, future directions. Front Genet 2012; 3: 34 . Doi: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00034
• 5 Sherkat R, Meidani M, Zarabian H, Rezaei A, Gholamrezaei A. Seropositivity of cytomegalovirus in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. J Res Med Sci 2014; 19 (Suppl. 01) S22-S25
• 6 Christiansen OB, Steffensen R, Nielsen HS, Varming K. Multifactorial etiology of recurrent miscarriage and its scientific and clinical implications. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2008; 66 (04) 257-267 . Doi: 10.1159/000149575
• 7 Dahm AEA, Tiscia G, Holmgren A. , et al. Genetic variations in the annexin A5 gene and the risk of pregnancy-related venous thrombosis. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13 (03) 409-413 . Doi: 10.1111/jth.12817
• 8 Kamali M, Hantoushzadeh S, Borna S. , et al. Association between thrombophilic genes polymorphisms and recurrent pregnancy loss susceptibility in the Iranian population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran Biomed J 2018; 22 (02) 78-89 . Doi: 10.22034/ibj.22.2.78
• 9 Prigoshin N, Tambutti M, Larriba J, Gogorza S, Testa R. Cytokine gene polymorphisms in recurrent pregnancy loss of unknown cause. Am J Reprod Immunol 2004; 52 (01) 36-41 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2004.00179.x
• 10 Skrzypczak J, Wirstlein P, Mikołajczyk M, Ludwikowski G, Zak T. TGF superfamily and MMP2, MMP9, TIMP1 genes expression in the endometrium of women with impaired reproduction. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2007; 45 (Suppl. 01) S143-S148 . Doi: 10.5603/4474
• 11 Anumba DO, El Gelany S, Elliott SL, Li TC. Circulating levels of matrix proteases and their inhibitors in pregnant women with and without a history of recurrent pregnancy loss. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8: 62 . Doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-8-62
• 12 Zhang K, Cheng D, Yi L, Shi H, Zhen G. Association between angiotensin I-converting enzyme gene polymorphism and susceptibility to cancer: a meta analysis. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014; 7 (09) 6291-6300
• 13 Guimarães PB, Alvarenga EC, Siqueira PD. , et al. Angiotensin II binding to angiotensin I-converting enzyme triggers calcium signaling. Hypertension 2011; 57 (05) 965-972 . Doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.110.167171
• 14 Zhang S, Wang J, Wang B, Ping Y, Ma X. Strong association between angiotensin I-converting enzyme I/D polymorphism and unexplained recurrent miscarriage of Chinese women--a case-control study. Reprod Sci 2011; 18 (08) 743-746 . Doi: 10.1177/1933719111415865
• 15 Shakarami F, Akbari MT, Zare Karizi S. Association of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and angiotensin converting enzyme polymorphisms with recurrent pregnancy loss in Iranian women. Iran J Reprod Med 2015; 13 (10) 627-632
• 16 Su MT, Lin SH, Chen YC, Kuo PL. Genetic association studies of ACE and PAI-1 genes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109 (01) 8-15 . Doi: 10.1160/TH12-08-0584
• 17 Yang C, Fangfang W, Jie L. , et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphisms and recurrent pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29 (11) 1167-1173 . Doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9870-3
• 18 Merlo S, Novák J, Tkáčová N. , et al. Association of the ACE rs4646994 and rs4341 polymorphisms with the progression of carotid atherosclerosis in slovenian patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Balkan J Med Genet 2016; 18 (02) 37-42 . Doi: 10.1515/bjmg-2015-0084
• 19 Rigat B, Hubert C, Alhenc-Gelas F, Cambien F, Corvol P, Soubrier F. An insertion/deletion polymorphism in the angiotensin I-converting enzyme gene accounting for half the variance of serum enzyme levels. J Clin Invest 1990; 86 (04) 1343-1346 . Doi: 10.1172/JCI114844
• 20 Namazi A, Forat-Yazdi M, Jafari M. , et al. Association of interleukin-10 -1082 a/G (Rs1800896) polymorphism with susceptibility to gastric cancer: meta-analysis of 6,101 cases and 8,557 controls. Arq Gastroenterol 2018; 55 (01) 33-40 . Doi: 10.1590/s0004-2803.201800000-18
• 21 Sobhan MR, Mehdinejad M, Jamaladini MH, Mazaheri M, Zare-Shehneh M, Neamatzadeh H. Association between aspartic acid repeat polymorphism of the asporin gene and risk of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017; 51 (05) 409-415 . Doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2017.08.001
• 22 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188 . Doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
• 23 Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22 (04) 719-748 . Doi: 10.1093/jnci/22.4.719
• 24 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50 (04) 1088-1101 . Doi: 10.2307/2533446
• 25 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634 . Doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
• 26 Fatini C, Gensini F, Battaglini B. , et al. Angiotensin-converting enzyme DD genotype, angiotensin type 1 receptor CC genotype, and hyperhomocysteinemia increase first-trimester fetal-loss susceptibility. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 2000; 11 (07) 657-662
• 27 Buchholz T, Lohse P, Rogenhofer N, Kosian E, Pihusch R, Thaler CJ. Polymorphisms in the ACE and PAI-1 genes are associated with recurrent spontaneous miscarriages. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (11) 2473-2477 . Doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg474
• 28 Soltan Ghoraei H, Memariani T, Aarabi M. , et al. Association of ACE, PAI-1 and coagulation factor XIII gene polymorphisms with recurrent spontaneous abortion in Iranian patients. J Reprod Infertil 2007; 7: 324-330
• 29 Goodman C, Hur J, Goodman CS, Jeyendran RS, Coulam C. Are polymorphisms in the ACE and PAI-1 genes associated with recurrent spontaneous miscarriages?. Am J Reprod Immunol 2009; 62 (06) 365-370 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0897.2009.00744.x
• 30 Vettriselvi V, Vijayalakshmi K, Paul SFD, Venkatachalam P. ACE and MTHFR gene polymorphisms in unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008; 34 (03) 301-306 . Doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2008.00792.x
• 31 Pan L. Association of the PAI-1 and ACE Gene Polymorphism with the Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion [master's thesis]. Yinchuan, China: Ningxia Medical University; 2009
• 32 Bukreeva L, Grigorov A, Kiesewetter H, Hoppe B. Association of angiotensin-converting enzyme intron 16 insertion/deletion polymorphism with history of foetal loss. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst 2009; 10 (04) 237-240 . Doi: 10.1177/1470320309343813
• 33 Al Sallout RJ, Sharif FA. Polymorphisms in NOS3, ACE and PAI-1 genes and risk of spontaneous recurrent miscarriage in the Gaza Strip. Med Princ Pract 2010; 19 (02) 99-104 . Doi: 10.1159/000273067
• 34 Bagheri M, Abdi Rad I, Omrani MD, Nanbaksh F. Polymorphisms of the angiotensin converting enzyme gene in Iranian Azeri Turkish women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2010; 13 (02) 79-82 . Doi: 10.3109/14647273.2010.484844
• 35 Choi YS, Kwon H, Kim JH. , et al. Haplotype-based association of ACE I/D, AT1R 1166A>C, and AGT M235T polymorphisms in renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system genes in Korean women with idiopathic recurrent spontaneous abortions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 158 (02) 225-228 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.04.028
• 36 Aarabi M, Memariani T, Arefi S. , et al. Polymorphisms of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, angiotensin converting enzyme and coagulation factor XIII genes in patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2011; 24 (03) 545-548 . Doi: 10.3109/14767058.2010.511331
• 37 Corbo RM, Ulizzi L, Piombo L, Scacchi R. Association of ACE I/D polymorphism and recurrent miscarriages in an Italian population with a pre-modern reproductive pattern. Ann Hum Biol 2011; 38 (01) 102-105 . Doi: 10.3109/03014460.2010.481265
• 38 Ozdemir O, Yenicesu GI, Silan F. , et al. Recurrent pregnancy loss and its relation to combined parental thrombophilic gene mutations. Genet Test Mol Biomarkers 2012; 16 (04) 279-286 . Doi: 10.1089/gtmb.2011.0191
• 39 Poursadegh Zonouzi A, Farajzadeh D, Bargahi N, Farajzadeh M. Apolipoprotein E genotyping in women with recurrent pregnancy loss: an in silico and experimental hybrid study. Gene 2014; 549 (02) 209-213 . Doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2014.07.055
• 40 Kim JJ, Choi YM, Lee SK. , et al. The PAI-1 4G/5G and ACE I/D polymorphisms and risk of recurrent pregnancy loss: a case-control study. Am J Reprod Immunol 2014; 72 (06) 571-576 . Doi: 10.1111/aji.12302
• 41 Yalcintepe S, Ozdemir O, Hacivelioglu SO. , et al. Multiple inherited thrombophilic gene polymorphisms in spontaneous abortions in Turkish population. Int J Mol Cell Med 2015; 4 (02) 120-127
• 42 Kurzawińska G, Barlik M, Drews K. , et al. Coexistence of ACE (I/D) and PAI-1 (4G/5G) gene variants in recurrent miscarriage in Polish population. Ginekol Pol 2016; 87 (04) 271-276 . Doi: 10.17772/gp/62203
• 43 Al-Mukaynizi FB, AlKhuriji A, Babay Z. , et al. Lack of association between angiotensin converting enzyme I/D polymorphism and unexplained recurrent miscarriage in Saudi Arabia. J Med Biochem 2016; 35 (02) 166-173 . Doi: 10.1515/jomb-2015-0020
• 44 Hussian AMF, Mohammed NEA, Ahmed MAM, Ali EW. Angiotensin converting enzyme Insertion/Deletion (I/D) polymorphism and risk of recurrent pregnancy loss among Sudanese women. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2016; 4: 7-10 . Doi: 10.5923/j.rog.20160401.02
• 45 Pereza N, Ostojić S, Zdravčević M, Volk M, Kapović M, Peterlin B. Insertion/deletion polymorphism in intron 16 of ACE gene in idiopathic recurrent spontaneous abortion: case-control study, systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2016; 32 (02) 237-246 . Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.11.003
• 46 Fazelnia S, Farazmandfar T, Hashemi-Soteh SMB. Significant correlation of angiotensin converting enzyme and glycoprotein IIIa genes polymorphisms with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss in north of Iran. Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd) 2016; 14 (05) 323-328
• 47 López-Jiménez JJ, Porras-Dorantes Á, Juárez-Vázquez CI. , et al. Molecular thrombophilic profile in Mexican patients with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Genet Mol Res 2016; 15 (04) DOI: 10.4238/gmr.15048728.
• 48 Heidari MM, Sheikholeslami M, Yavari M, Khatami M, Seyedhassani SM. The association of renin-angiotensinogen system genes polymorphisms and idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2017; •••: 1-7 . Doi: 10.1080/14647273.2017.1388545
• 49 Chatzidimitriou M, Chatzidimitriou D, Mavridou M. , et al. Thrombophilic gene polymorphisms and recurrent pregnancy loss in Greek women. Int J Lab Hematol 2017; 39 (06) 590-595 . Doi: 10.1111/ijlh.12703
• 50 Forat-Yazdi M, Jafari M, Kargar S. , et al. Association between SULT1A1 Arg213His (Rs9282861) polymorphism and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Res Health Sci 2017; 17 (04) e00396
• 51 Jafari Nedooshan J, Forat Yazdi M, Neamatzadeh H, Zare Shehneh M, Kargar S, Seddighi N. Genetic association of XRCC1 gene rs1799782, rs25487 and rs25489 polymorphisms with risk of thyroid cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2017; 18 (01) 263-270 . Doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.1.263
• 52 Jafari Nedooshan J, Kargar S, Neamatzadeh H, Haghighi F, Dehghani Mohammad Abadi R, Seddighi N. Lack of association of the fat mass and obesity associated (FTO) gene rs9939609 polymorphism with breast cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on case - control studies. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2017; 18 (04) 1031-1037 . Doi: 10.22034/APJCP.2017.18.4.1031
• 53 Sadeghiyeh T, Hosseini Biouki F, Mazaheri M, Zare-Shehneh M, Neamatzadeh H, Poursharif Z. Association between Catechol-O-Methyltransferase Val158Met (158G/A) polymorphism and suicide susceptibility: a meta-analysis. J Res Health Sci 2017; 17 (02) e00383