MYC oncogene is a transcription factor with a wide array of functions affecting cellular activities such as cell cycle, apoptosis, DNA damage response, and hematopoiesis. Due to the multi-functionality of MYC, its expression is regulated at multiple levels. Deregulation of this oncogene can give rise to a variety of cancers. In this review, MYC regulation and the mechanisms by which MYC adjusts cellular functions and its implication in hematologic malignancies are summarized. Further, we also discuss potential inhibitors of MYC that could be beneficial for treating hematologic malignancies.
Background Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be a crucial supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID‐19. Hence, we carried out a systematic review and meta‐analysis in order to maximise the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID‐19. Methods A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science up to December 18, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID‐19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Results Twenty‐three studies containing 11 901 participants entered into the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis indicated that 41% of COVID‐19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 29%‐55%), and in 42% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 24%‐63%). The serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D concentration was 20.3 ng/mL among all COVID‐19 patients (95% CI, 12.1‐19.8). The odds of getting infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 are 3.3 times higher among individuals with vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 2.5‐4.3). The chance of developing severe COVID‐19 is about five times higher in patients with vitamin D deficiency (OR: 5.1, 95% CI, 2.6‐10.3). There is no significant association between vitamin D status and higher mortality rates (OR: 1.6, 95% CI, 0.5‐4.4). Conclusion This study found that most of the COVID‐19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency. Also, there is about three times higher chance of getting infected with SARS‐CoV‐2 among vitamin‐D‐deficient individuals and about five times higher probability of developing the severe disease in vitamin‐D‐deficient patients. Vitamin D deficiency showed no significant association with mortality rates in this population.
Background: Following emerge of a novel coronavirus from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has affected the whole world and after months of efforts by the medical communities, there is still no specific approach for prevention and treatment against the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Evidence recommends that vitamin D might be an important supportive agent for the immune system, mainly in cytokine response regulation against COVID-19. Hence, we carried out a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis along with an ecological investigation in order to maximize the use of everything that exists about the role of vitamin D in the COVID-19. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Google Scholar (intitle) as well as preprint database of medRxiv, bioRxiv, Research Square, preprints.org, search engine of ScienceDirect and a rapid search through famous journals up to May 26, 2020. Studies focused on the role of vitamin D in confirmed COVID-19 patients were entered into the systematic review. Along with our main aim, to find the second objective: correlation of global vitamin D status and COVID-19 recovery and mortality we carried out a literature search in PubMed database to identify the national or regional studies reported the vitamin D status globally. CMA v. 2.2.064 and SPSS v.16 were used for data analysis. Results: Out of nine studies entered into our systematic review, six studies containing 3,822 participants entered into the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated that 46.5% of COVID-19 patients were suffering from vitamin D deficiency (95% CI, 28.2%-65.8%) and in 43.3% of patients, levels of vitamin D were insufficient (95% CI, 27.4%-60.8%). In regard to our ecological investigation on 51 countries including 408,748 participants, analyses indicated no correlation between vitamin D levels and recovery rate (r= 0.041) as well as mortality rate (r=−0.073) globally. However, given latitude, a small reverse correlation between mortality rate and vitamin D status was observed throughout the globe (r= −0.177). In Asia, a medium direct correlation was observed for recovery rate (r= 0.317) and a significant reveres correlation for mortality rate (r= −0.700) with vitamin D status in such patients. In Europe, there were no correlations for both recovery (r= 0.040) and mortality rate (r= −0.035). In Middle East, the recovery rate (r= 0.267) and mortality rate (r= −0.217) showed a medium correlation. In North and Sought America, surprisingly, both recovery and mortality rate demonstrated a direct correlation respectively (r= 1.000, r=0.500). In Oceania, unexpectedly, recovery (r= −1.000) and mortality (r= −1.000) rates were in considerable reverse correlation with vitamin D levels. Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis with an ecological approach, we found a high percentage of COVID-19 patients who suffer from vitamin D deficiency or insufficiency. Much more important, our ecological investigation resulted in substantial direct and reverse correlations between recovery and mortality rates of COVID-19 patients with vitamin D status in different countries. Considering latitudes, a small reverse correlation between vitamin D status and mortality rate was found globally. It seems that populations with lower levels of vitamin D might be more susceptible to the novel coronavirus infection. Nevertheless, due to multiple limitations, if this study does not allow to quantify a value of the Vitamin D with full confidence, it allows at least to know what the Vitamin D might be and that it would be prudent to invest in this direction through comprehensive large randomized clinical trials.
ObjectivesBreast cancer is known as one of the deadliest forms of cancer, and it is increasing globally. There are a variety of proven and controversial risk factors for this malignancy. Herein, we aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis focus on the epidemiology of breast cancer risk factors in Iran.MethodsWe performed a systematic search via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Persian databases for identifying studies published on breast cancer risk factors up to March 2019. Meta-analyses were done for risk factors reported in more than one study. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed/random-effects models.ResultsThirty-nine studies entered into the meta-analysis. Pooling of ORs showed a significant harmful effect for risk factors including family history (OR: 1.80, 95%CI 1.47–2.12), hormonal replacement therapy (HRT) (OR: 5.48, 95%CI 0.84–1.74), passive smokers (OR: 1.68, 95%CI 1.34–2.03), full-term pregnancy at age 30 (OR: 3.41, 95%CI 1.19–5.63), abortion (OR: 1.84, 95%CI 1.35–2.33), sweets consumption (OR: 1.71, 95%CI 1.32–2.11) and genotype Arg/Arg (crude OR: 1.59, 95%CI 1.07–2.10), whereas a significant protective effect for late menarche (OR: 0.58, 95%CI 0.32–0.83), nulliparity (OR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.39–0.96), 13–24 months of breastfeeding (OR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.46–0.90), daily exercise (OR: 0.59, 95%CI 0.44–0.73) and vegetable consumption (crude OR: 0.28, 95%CI 0.10–0.46).ConclusionsThis study suggests that factors such as family history, HRT, passive smokers, late full-term pregnancy, abortion, sweets consumption and genotype Arg/Arg might increase risk of breast cancer development, whereas late menarche, nulliparity, 13–24 months breastfeeding, daily exercise and vegetable consumption had an inverse association with breast cancer development.
To systematically investigate the epidemiology of breast cancer risk factors in Iran, we performed a systematic search via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Persian databases for identifying studies published on breast cancer risk factors up to March 2019. Meta-analyses were done for risk factors reported in more than one study. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a fixed/random-effects models.Thirty-nine studies entered into the meta-analysis. Pooling of ORs showed a significant harmful effect for risk factors including family history (OR: 1.80, 95%CI 1.47-2.12), HRT (OR: 5.48, 95%CI 0.84-1.74), ER positive (OR: 1.87, 95%CI 1.41-2.33), PR positive (OR: 1.84, 95%CI 1.38-2.29), stress condition (OR: 2.67, 95%CI 1.84-3.50), passive smokers (OR: 1.68, 95%CI 1.34-2.03), full-term pregnancy at age 30 (OR: 3.41, 95%CI 1.19-5.63), abortion (OR: 1.84, 95%CI 1.35-2.33), sweets consumption (OR: 1.71, 95%CI 1.32-2.11) and genotype Arg/Arg (crude OR: 1.59, 95%CI 1.07-2.10), whereas a significant protective effect for late menarche (OR: 0.58, 95%CI 0.32-0.83), nulliparity (OR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.39-0.96), 13 to 24 months of breastfeeding (OR: 0.68, 95%CI 0.46-0.90), daily exercise (OR: 0.59, 95%CI 0.44-0.73) and vegetable consumption (crude OR: 0.28, 95%CI 0.10-0.46).This study suggest that factors such as family history, HRT, ER and PR positive status, stress condition, passive smokers, late full-term pregnancy, abortion, sweets consumption and genotype Arg/Arg might increase risk of breast cancer development, whereas late menarche, nulliparity, 13-24 months breastfeeding, daily exercise and vegetable consumption had an inverse association with breast cancer development.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.