BMC Medical Genetics

, 18:120 | Cite as

Lack of associations of the opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) A118G polymorphism (rs1799971) with alcohol dependence: review and meta-analysis of retrospective controlled studies

Open Access
Research article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Genetic epidemiology and genetic associations

Abstract

Background

Studies have sought associations of the opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) A118G polymorphism (rs1799971) with alcohol-dependence, but findings are inconsistent. We summarize the information as to associations of rs1799971 (A > G) and the alcohol-dependence.

Methods

Systematically, we reviewed related literatures using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Embase, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched using select medical subject heading (MeSH) terms to identify all researches focusing on the present topic up to September 2016. Odds ratios (ORs) along with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were estimated in allele model, homozygote model, heterozygote model, dominant model and recessive model. Ethnicity-specific subgroup-analysis, sensitivity analysis, heterogeneity description, and publication-bias assessment were also analyzed.

Results

There were 17 studies, including 9613 patients in the present meta-analysis. The ORs in the 5 genetic-models were 1.037 (95% CI: 0.890, 1.210; p = 0.64), 1.074 (95% CI: 0.831, 1.387; p = 0.586), 1.155 (95% CI: 0.935, 1.427; p = 0.181), 1.261 (95% CI: 1.008, 1.578; p = 0.042), 0.968 (95% CI: 0.758, 1.236; p = 0.793), respectively. An association is significant in the dominant model, but there is no statistical significance upon ethnicity-specific subgroup analysis.

Conclusion

The rs1799971 (A > G) is not strongly associated with alcohol-dependence. However, there are study heterogeneities and limited sample sizes.

Keywords

Meta-analysis Rs1799971 OPRM1 A118G Polymorphism Alcohol-dependence 

Abbreviations

95% CI

95% confidence interval

CNKI

Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure

HWE

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium

MeSH

Medical Subject Heading

OPRM1

opioid receptor mu 1

OR

odds ratio

PCR-RFLP

polymerase chain reaction-restricted fragment length polymorphisms.

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Background

Alcohol-dependence is a common disorder involving psychological and physical alcohol-dependence despite frequent complications [1]. Based on DSM-IV criteria, no less than 3 out of 7 of the following criteria must be met during 12 months for alcohol-dependence: tolerance; use is continued in spite of knowledge of related harms; recreational, occupational or social pursuits are reduced or given up due to alcohol use; time is spent obtaining alcohol or recovering from effects; unsuccessful efforts or persistent desires to cut down on alcohol-use; use for longer periods or in larger amounts than intended; and withdrawal symptoms or clinically defined alcohol withdrawal syndrome [2]. There are around 76 million people suffered from alcohol dependence worldwide, which is one of the leading psychiatric disorders of adult patients [3]. Its etiology is still unclear [4]. There were some studies indicating heritability of this disorder (ranging from 49% to 64%) [5, 6]. Several studies concerning genome-wide or phenome-wide associations of alcohol dependence were listed in Table 1 [5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. These researches suggested that genetic factors might influence the patient susceptibility to alcohol dependence.
Table 1

Previous studies about genome- or phenome-wide association studies of alcohol dependence

Association type

Author

Year

Country

PMID

Subjects number

Key findings

Genome-wide association studies

Gelernter J et al. [7]

2014

USA

24,166,409

16,087

1. They confirmed well-known risk loci mapped to alcohol-metabolizing enzyme genes, notably ADH1B in European-American (EA) and African-American (AA) populations and ADH1C in AAs, and identified novel risk loci mapping to the ADH gene cluster on chromosome 4 and extending centromerically beyond it to include GWS associations at LOC100507053 in AAs, PDLIM5 in EAs, and METAP in AAs.

2. They also identified a novel GWS association mapped to chromosome 2 at rs1437396, between MTIF2 and CCDC88A, across all of the EA and AA cohorts, with supportive gene expression evidence, and population-specific GWS for markers on chromosomes 5, 9 and 19.

Xu K et al. [8]

2015

USA

26,036,284

9500

1. The results confirmed significant associations of the well-known functional loci at ADH1B with MaxDrinks in EAs and AAs. The region of significant association on chromosome 4 was extended to LOC100507053 in AAs but not EAs.

2. They also identified potentially novel significant common SNPs for MaxDrinks in EAs: rs1799876 at SERPINC1 on chromosome 1 and rs2309169 close to ANKRD36 on chromosome 2.

Mbarek H et al. [5]

2015

Netherlands

26,365,420

7842

1. GWAS SNP effect concordance analysis was performed between GWAS and a recent alcohol dependence GWAS using DSM-IV diagnosis. The twin-based heritability of alcohol dependence-AUDIT was estimated at 60% (55–69%).

2. GCTA showed that common SNPs jointly capture 33% of this heritability.

3. The top hits were positioned within 4 regions (4q31.1, 2p16.1, 6q25.1, 7p14.1) with the strongest association detected for rs55768019.

Polimanti R et al. [11]

2017

USA

26,458,734

5546

1. In the stage 1 sample, they observed 3 GWS SNP associations, rs200889048 and rs12490016 in EAs and rs1630623 in AAs and EAs meta-analyzed.

2. In the stage 2 sample, they replicated 278, 253 and 168 of the stage 1 suggestive loci in AAs, EAs, and AAs and EAs meta-analyzed, respectively. A meta-analysis of stage 1 and stage 2 samples identified 2 additional GWS signals: rs28562191 in EAs and rs56950471 in AAs

Meyers JL et al. [9]

2017

USA

28,070,124

2382

1. Ten correlated SNPs located in an intergenic region on chromosome 3q26 were associated with fast beta (20–28 Hz) EEG power at P < 5 × 10–8. The most significantly associated SNP, rs11720469 is an expression quantitative trait locus for butyrylcholinesterase, expressed in thalamus tissue.

2. Four of the genome-wide SNPs were also associated with alcohol dependence, and two (rs13093097, rs7428372) were replicated in an independent AA sample.

3. Analyses in the AA adolescent/young adult subsample indicated association of rs11720469 with heavy episodic drinking (frequency of consuming 5+ drinks within 24 h).

Phenome-wide association studies

Polimanti R et al. [10]

2016

USA

27,187,070

26,394

1. They replicated prior associations with drinking behaviors and identified multiple novel phenome-wide significant and suggestive findings related to psychological traits, socioeconomic status, vascular/metabolic conditions, and reproductive health.

2. They applied Bayesian network learning algorithms to provide insight into the causative relationships of the novel ADH1B associations: ADH1B appears to affect phenotypic traits via both alcohol-mediated and alcohol-independent effects. They replicated the novel ADH1B associations related to socioeconomic status (household gross income and highest grade finished in school).

3. For CHRNA3-CHRNA5 risk alleles, they replicated association with smoking behaviors, lung cancer, and asthma. There were also novel suggestive CHRNA3-CHRNA5 findings with respect to high-cholesterol-medication use and distrustful attitude.

A relevant neurotransmitter system is related to endogenous opioids pathway [12]. Drinking alcohol can first increase levels of endogenous opioids (e.g. β-endorphin). Opioid reward system in return can elicit seeking additional alcohol. In addition, binding of μ-opioid receptors to β-endorphin could reinforce alcohol-dependence through increasing dopamine expressions at reward-centers [12] and then affect individual responses to alcohol. Therefore, genetic variations of OPRM1 might have an effect upon the risks of alcohol-dependence [13]. The rs1799971 is in the OPRM1 coding-area [13]. Though lots of researches have sought associations of the OPRM1 A118G- polymorphism with alcohol-dependence, there was no consensuses. [14] A Swedish group found that the A118G-polymorphism was connected to an 11% risk of alcohol dependence [15] while Bergen et al. found no significant association. [16] We were thus prompted to perform a meta-analysis to provide a full picture of current progress on this topic.

Methods

Article search and selection criteria

Two investigators searched CNKI, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and PubMed (up to Sep. 2016). Terms included “alcohol or alcoholic” and “rs1799971 or A118G or OPRM1”. Also, related references were scanned. Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis

Number

Inclusion criteria

 1

Case-control studies.

 2

The studies evaluated the associations between OPRM1 A118G polymorphism and alcohol dependence.

 3

The studies included detailed genotyping data (total number of cases and controls, number of cases and controls with A/A, A/G, and G/G genotypes).

 4

Studies focusing on human being.

Number

Exclusion criteria

 1

The design of the experiments was not case-control.

 2

The source of cases and controls, and other essential information were not provided.

 3

The genotype distribution of the control population was not in accordance with the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE).

 4

Reviews and duplicated publications.

Data extraction

We sought these information: authors’ names, publication-year, nation, ethnicity (Asian, Caucasian, or others), genotyping ways, P value for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE),total numbers of controls and cases, controls and cases with OPRM1-A118G polymorphism, with A/A, A/G, and G/G genotypes, and control sources (population-based or hospital-based).

Methodological qualities

Based on the methodological quality scale (see Table 3), 2 investigators estimated the study qualities independently. Disagreements were resolved by discussions. In the methodological quality assessment scale, five items (sample sizes, quality control of genotyping methods, source of controls, case representativeness, and HWEs) were checked. The scores range between 0 and 10, with 10 indicating highest quality.
Table 3

Scale for methodological quality assessment

Criteria

Score

1. Representativeness of cases

 

 RA diagnosed according to acknowledged criteria.

2

 Mentioned the diagnosed criteria but not specifically described.

1

 Not Mentioned.

0

2. Source of controls

 

 Population or community based

3

 Hospital-based RA-free controls

2

 Healthy volunteers without total description

1

 RA-free controls with related diseases

0.5

 Not described

0

3. Sample size

 

  > 300

2

 200–300

1

  < 200

0

4. Quality control of genotyping methods

 

 Repetition of partial/total tested samples with a different method

2

 Repetition of partial/total tested samples with the same method

1

 Not described

0

5. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE)

 

 Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium in control subjects

1

 Hardy-Weinberg disequilibrium in control subjects

0

Statistical analysis

This analysis was in accord with the PRISMA checklist and guideline. ORs were computed in 3 steps: 1) for given individuals that have “B”, we computed the odds that the same individuals have “A”; 2) for given individuals that do not have “B”, we computed the odds that the same individuals have “A”; and 3) we divided the odds from step 1 by the odds from step 2, getting the ORs. The pooled ORs were estimated and used for comparisons in the 5 genetic models mentioned above. Ethnicity-specific subgroup-analyses were also made. To estimate the heterogeneities, we performed the I2 tests, Labbe plots, and Cochran’s Q-tests (see Table 4). As it seems likely that there are considerable phenotypic variations between populations in the different studies, we did all these analyses using the random-effects model. By contour-enhanced funnel plots and sensitivity-analysis plots (Table 4), we did publication-bias and sensitivity tests.
Table 4

The statistical methods used in this meta-analysis and there explanation

Statistic means

Goals and Usages

Explanation

Labbe plot

To evaluate heterogeneity between the included studies

In Labbe figure, if the points basically present as a linear distribution, it can be taken as an evidence of homogeneity.

Cochran’s Q test

To evaluate heterogeneity between the included studies

Cochran’s Q test is an extension to the McNemar test for related samples that provides a method for testing for differences between three or more matched sets of frequencies or proportions. Heterogeneity was also considered significant if P < 0.05 using the Cochran’s Q test.

I2 index test

To evaluate heterogeneity between the included studies

The I2 index measures the extent of true heterogeneity dividing the difference between the result of the Q test and its degrees of freedom (k – 1) by the Q value itself, and multiplied by 100. I2 values of 25%, 50% and 75% were used as evidence of low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively.

Sensitivity analysis

To examine the stability of the pooled results

A sensitivity analysis was performed using the one-at-a-time method, which involved omitting one study at a time and repeating the meta-analysis. If the omission of one study significantly changed the result, it implied that the result was sensitive to the studies included.

Contour-enhanced funnel plot

Publication bias test

Visual inspection of the Contour-enhanced funnel plots was used to assess potential publication bias. Asymmetry in the plots, which may be due to studies missing on the left-hand side of the plot that represents low statistical significance, suggested publication bias. If studies were missing in the high statistical significance areas (on the right-hand side of the plot), the funnel asymmetry was not considered to be due to publication bias

A value of P < 0.01 was deemed of statistical significance. Statistical-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3 and STATA 13.0.

Results

Search results and study characteristics

Figure 1 shows the processes of the literature-searching. 17 studies with 9613 patients were included. [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31] Nine studies involved Caucasian subjects and were done in the USA, [15, 16, 24, 28, 30] Germany, [19, 22, 27] and Spain [18] (8026 subjects in total). Eight involved Asian subjects and were done in China, [23, 26, 29, 31] India, [17] Japan, [25] and Korea [20, 21] (1587 subjects in total). Fourteen studies were written in English, [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30] and three were in Chinese. [26, 29, 31] Alcohol dependence was defined by drinking history. Genotyping methods used included direct sequencing, polymerase chain reaction-restricted fragment length polymorphisms (PCR-RFLP), Puregene™ kit or standard phenol-chloroform method, TaqMan assay, and fluorescence resonance energy transfer method. Ten matchings for the controls were population-based, [15, 16, 18, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31] 3 were hospital-based, [20, 21, 22] and 4 were mixed. [17, 19, 23, 30] The characteristics and methodological qualities are in Table 5.
Fig. 1

Literature search and selection of articles

Table 5

Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Author

Year

Country

Ethnicity

Disease type

Genotyping

Source of controls

Alcohol-dependence (n)

Controls (n)

P for HWE

Quality

Total

AA

AG

GG

Total

AA

AG

GG

Bergen et al.

1997

USA

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

Direct sequencing and PCR-RFLP

Population-based

160

123

35

2

264

204

59

1

0.1285

7

Sander et al.

1998

German

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

327

261

62

4

340

289

49

2

0.9606

6

Franke et al.

2001

German

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

Direct sequencing and PCR-RFLP

Mixed

221

170

50

1

365

284

74

7

0.4024

8

Schinka et al.

2002

USA

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

Puregene™ kit or standard phenol-chloroform method

Population-based

179

152

27

0

297

220

73

4

0.4531

7

Kim et al.

2004

Korea

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Hospital-based

100

46

47

7

128

54

53

21

0.2014

8

Kim et al.

2004

Korea

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Hospital-based

112

37

61

14

140

68

57

15

0.5582

7

Loh et al.

2004

China Taiwan

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Mixed

154

59

77

18

146

70

56

20

0.1136

8

Bart et al.

2005

USA

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

389

299

90

170

147

23

Not available

8

Nishizawa et al.

2006

Japan

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

64

12

37

15

74

26

33

15

0.4493

8

Zhang et al.

2006

USA and Russia

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Mixed

318

246

68

4

338

256

78

4

0.4713

7

Deb et al.

2010

India

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Mixed

53

16

32

5

82

44

30

8

0.3967

8

Miranda et al.

2010

USA

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

TaqMan assays

Population-based

27

13

14

160

134

26

> 0.05

8

Dou et al.

2011

China

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

118

48

53

17

218

74

110

34

0.5127

6

Koller et al.

2012

Germany

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

Fluorescence resonance energy transfer method

Hospital-based

1845

1461

353

31

1863

1417

419

27

0.5275

9

Huang et al.

2012

China

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

45

33

11

1

45

33

12

0

0.3021

6

Francesc

2015

Spain

Caucasian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

630

425

190

15

133

101

30

2

0.893

7

Jin

2015

China

Asian

Alcohol-dependence

PCR-RFLP

Population-based

58

41

12

5

50

39

9

2

0.1487

7

Meta-analysis results

Related results are listed in Table 6. The Labbe plots are as Fig. 2a–c. Overall, statistically significant associations of OPRM1-A118G polymorphism with alcohol-dependence was detected only in the dominant model (OR 1.261, 95% CI 1.008, 1.578; p = 0.042; Fig. 6). In the other four models, any associations were not significant (allele model: OR 1.037, 95% CI 0.890, 1.210; p = 0.640; Fig. 3; homozygote model: OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.831, 1.387; p = 0.586; Fig. 4; heterozygote model: OR 1.155, 95% CI 0.935, 1.427; p = 0.181; Fig. 5; recessive model: OR 0.968, 95% CI 0.758, 1.236; p = 0.793; Fig. 7).
Table 6

The results of meta-analysis for various genotype models

Genetic model

Heterogeneity test

Test of Association

Publication bias

Name

Explanation

Ethnicity

Q value

d.f.

I-squared

Tau-squared

P Value

Heterogeneity

Effect model

Pooled OR

95% CI

Z value

P value

Statistical significance

Allele model

G vs. A

Caucasian

17.38

6

65.5%

0.0493

0.008

Yes

Random

0.985

[0.797, 1.217]

0.14

0.888

No

No

Asian

14.90

7

53.0%

0.0564

0.037

Yes

Random

1.100

[0.871, 1.390]

0.80

0.421

No

Total

34.85

14

59.8%

0.0487

0.002

Yes

Random

1.037

[0.890, 1.210]

0.47

0.640

No

Homozygote model

GG vs. AA

Caucasian

5.60

6

0.0%

NA

0.469

No

Random

1.119

[0.731, 1.714]

0.52

0.605

No

No

Asian

10.22

7

31.5%

NA

0.176

No

Random

1.146

[0.743, 1.767]

0.62

0.538

No

Total

15.81

14

11.4%

NA

0.325

No

Random

1.118

[0.830, 1.506]

0.74

0.462

No

Heterozygote model

AG vs. AA

Caucasian

16.71

6

64.1%

0.0575

0.010

Yes

Random

0.983

[0.780, 1.237]

0.15

0.882

No

No

Asian

15.58

7

55.1%

0.1296

0.029

Yes

Random

1.433

[1.015, 2.023]

2.04

0.041

No

Total

42.72

14

67.2%

0.1017

0.000

Yes

Random

1.155

[0.935, 1.427]

1.34

0.181

No

Dominant model

AG + GG vs. AA

Caucasian

41.43

8

80.7%

0.1518

0.000

Yes

Random

1.185

[0.882, 1.593]

1.13

0.259

No

No

Asian

16.65

7

58.0%

0.1310

0.020

Yes

Random

1.379

[0.983, 1.934]

1.86

0.063

No

Total

63.64

16

74.9%

0.1467

0.000

Yes

Random

1.261

[1.008, 1.578]

2.03

0.042

No

Recessive model

GG vs. AA + AG

Caucasian

5.24

6

0.0%

NA

0.513

No

Random

1.142

[0.746, 1.747]

0.61

0.542

No

No

Asian

6.21

7

0.0%

NA

0.516

No

Random

0.919

[0.673, 1.255]

0.53

0.595

No

Total

12.06

14

0.0%

NA

0.602

No

Random

0.991

[0.771, 1.275]

0.07

0.946

No

Fig. 2

Labbe plots, sensitivity analysis plots, and contour-enhanced funnel plots of the included studies focusing on the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence risk. Labbe plots in allele model (a), heterozygote model (b), and dominant model (c). Sensitivity analysis in allele model (d), heterozygote model (e), and dominant model (f). Contour-enhanced funnel plots in allele model (g), heterozygote model (h), and dominant model (i)

Fig. 3

Forest plots (individual and pooled effects with 95% CI) regarding the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence in the allele model

Fig. 4

Forest plots (individual and pooled effects with 95% CI) regarding the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence in the homozygote model

Fig. 5

Forest plots (individual and pooled effects with 95% CI) regarding the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence in the heterozygote model

The ethnicities are an Asian group and a Caucasian group. The corresponding results are shown in Table 6 and Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. For both the 2 subgroups, the OPRM1-A118G polymorphism had no association with alcohol-dependence in all these 5 genetic-models.
Fig. 6

Forest plots (individual and pooled effects with 95% CI) regarding the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence in the dominant model

Fig. 7

Forest plots (individual and pooled effects with 95% CI) regarding the association of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism with alcohol dependence in the recessive model

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

The ORs were not influenced by removing any single article (Fig. 2d–f). We had searched all possible studies both in Chinese databases and English databases to reduce the publication bias. Contour-enhanced funnel plots demonstrated that the studies only had missing areas for high statistical significance instead of low significance areas, thus very little or none publication bias was detected (Fig. 2g–i).

Discussion

Alcohol dependence is estimated to exhibit heritability of more than 50% [5, 6], indicating genetic factors might play pivotal roles alcohol-dependence. Genome-wide or phenome-wide associations researches of alcohol-dependence was presented in Table 1. In view of the significances of μ-opioid receptor systems in physiologic mechanisms of reward centers, it is safe to say that OPRM1-polymorphisms had an influence on alcohol-dependence risks. [32, 33] Therefore, we focused our study on OPRM1 A118G, which is a functional allelic-variant with deleterious effects on protein and mRNA expressions. [34]

Close associations are suspected of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism (A > G) with nicotine, alcohol, and opioid dependence. [13, 35, 36] Kapur et al. and Tan et al. discovered close associations between A118G-polymorphisms and heroin dependence. [37, 38] Modulation changes of kinase A are likely responsible for the close associations of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism (A > G) with heroin dependence. [39] Recently, Frances et al. found that the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism (A > G) was associated with alcohol/tobacco-dependence in a Spanish population, and this association was related to several environmental and genetic factors. [18] However, the study from Rouvinen-Lagerstrom et al. suggested that the effect of A118G-polymorphism on the development of alcohol dependence was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). [40] In a study by Franke et al., data from ethnically homogenous samples detected no actual difference of the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism between alcohol dependent subjects and controls. [19]

We combed PubMed, Embase, Web of knowledge and CNKI databases in search of associations of alcohol dependence with the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism to cover the most information sourced from both Chinese and English studies. In our meta-analysis, significant associations between alcohol-dependence risks and A118G-polymorphisms were only found in the dominant model (OR 1.261, 95% CI 1.008, 1.578; p = 0.042). Association was non-significant in four other models. For subgroup analyses of Caucasian or Asian group each considered separately, the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism did not have association with alcohol dependence in all five genetic models.

In the contour-enhanced funnel plots, each circle represented a study. If studies appeared to be missing in areas of low statistical significance (the left part of the plot), the asymmetry is likely to be due to publication-biases. [41] In the present study, funnel plots indicated no publication bias.

There are potential limitations in our meta-analysis. The numbers of studies (nine and eight) as well as sample sizes for each ethnicity were limited. Type-II error could not be dismissed. [42] In addition, effects of gene-environment interactions and gene-gene interactions were not analyzed as not all eligible articles included these type of data. Within those studies with genomic interaction data, confounding factors were controlled and reported differently. Last, ORs adjusted by patient characteristics including genders, ages, living styles, medication-consumptions and other exposure-factors using meta-regression could be calculated with higher accuracy if related data were available in the majority of eligible studies.

Conclusions

The opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) A118G polymorphism (rs1799971) is not associated with alcohol dependence in Caucasian nor Asian populations.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our colleagues at the Department of Neurosurgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College.

Funding

This study was supported by China Scholarship Council of the Ministry of Education, P. R. China. This study was funded by Peking Union Medical College Youth Research Funds (2016) (Project No. 3332016010; Grant recipient: Xiangyi Kong). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The data are within the manuscript.

Authors’ contributions

XY K, H D, and S G contributed to the data collection and paper drafting; H D and T A contributed to the data analyzing; JP W and YG K contributed to the literature reviewing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Because this is only a systematic review of previous retrospective studies, and does not involve any human experiments or animal experiments, ethics approval and consent are not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors state that there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.
    Batra A, Muller CA, Mann K, Heinz A. Alcohol dependence and harmful use of alcohol. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(17):301–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rose JS, Lee CT, Selya AS, Dierker LC. DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence criteria characteristics for recent onset adolescent drinkers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;124(1–2):88–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thompson A, Wright AK, Ashcroft DM, van Staa TP, Pirmohamed M. Epidemiology of alcohol dependence in UK primary care: results from a large observational study using the clinical practice research Datalink. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0174818.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blazer DG, LT W. The epidemiology of alcohol use disorders and subthreshold dependence in a middle-aged and elderly community sample. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2011;19(8):685–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mbarek H, Milaneschi Y, Fedko IO, Hottenga JJ, de Moor MH, Jansen R, Gelernter J, Sherva R, Willemsen G, Boomsma DI, et al. The genetics of alcohol dependence: twin and SNP-based heritability, and genome-wide association study based on AUDIT scores. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2015;168(8):739–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen D, Liu L, Xiao Y, Peng Y, Yang C, Wang Z. Ethnic-specific meta-analyses of association between the OPRM1 A118G polymorphism and alcohol dependence among Asians and Caucasians. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;123(1–3):1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelernter J, Kranzler HR, Sherva R, Almasy L, Koesterer R, Smith AH, Anton R, Preuss UW, Ridinger M, Rujescu D, et al. Genome-wide association study of alcohol dependence:significant findings in African- and European-Americans including novel risk loci. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19(1):41–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Xu K, Kranzler HR, Sherva R, Sartor CE, Almasy L, Koesterer R, Zhao H, Farrer LA, Gelernter J. Genomewide association study for maximum number of alcoholic drinks in European Americans and African Americans. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(7):1137–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyers JL, Zhang J, Wang JC, Su J, Kuo SI, Kapoor M, Wetherill L, Bertelsen S, Lai D, Salvatore JE, et al. An endophenotype approach to the genetics of alcohol dependence: a genome wide association study of fast beta EEG in families of African ancestry. Mol Psychiatry. 2017;00:1–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polimanti R, Kranzler HR, Gelernter J. Phenome-wide association study for alcohol and nicotine risk alleles in 26394 women. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(11):2688–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polimanti R, Zhang H, Smith AH, Zhao H, Farrer LA, Kranzler HR, Gelernter J. Genome-wide association study of body mass index in subjects with alcohol dependence. Addict Biol. 2017;22(2):535–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heinz A, Beck A, Wrase J, Mohr J, Obermayer K, Gallinat J, Puls I. Neurotransmitter systems in alcohol dependence. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2009;42(Suppl 1):S95–S101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gurel SC, Ayhan Y, Karaaslan C, Akel H, Karaca RO, Babaoglu MO, Yasar U, Bozkurt A, Dilbaz N, Ulug BD, et al. Mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) polymorphisms A118G and C17T in alcohol dependence: a Turkish sample. Turk Psikiyatri Derg. 2016;27(2):0.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ragia G, Veresies I, Veresie L, Veresies K, Manolopoulos VG. Association study of DRD2 A2/A1, DRD3 Ser9Gly, DbetaH -1021C>T, OPRM1 A118G and GRIK1 rs2832407C>A polymorphisms with alcohol dependence. Drug Metab Pers Ther. 2016;31(3):143–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bart G, Kreek MJ, Ott J, LaForge KS, Proudnikov D, Pollak L, Heilig M. Increased attributable risk related to a functional mu-opioid receptor gene polymorphism in association with alcohol dependence in central Sweden. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30(2):417–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergen AW, Kokoszka J, Peterson R, Long JC, Virkkunen M, Linnoila M, Goldman D. Mu opioid receptor gene variants: lack of association with alcohol dependence. Mol Psychiatry. 1997;2(6):490–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deb I, Chakraborty J, Gangopadhyay PK, Choudhury SR, Das S. Single-nucleotide polymorphism (A118G) in exon 1 of OPRM1 gene causes alteration in downstream signaling by mu-opioid receptor and may contribute to the genetic risk for addiction. J Neurochem. 2010;112(2):486–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frances F, Portoles O, Castello A, Costa JA, Verdu F. Association between opioid receptor mu 1 (OPRM1) gene polymorphisms and tobacco and alcohol consumption in a Spanish population. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2015;15(2):31–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Franke P, Wang T, Nothen MM, Knapp M, Neidt H, Albrecht S, Jahnes E, Propping P, Maier W. Nonreplication of association between mu-opioid-receptor gene (OPRM1) A118G polymorphism and substance dependence. Am J Med Genet. 2001;105(1):114–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim SA, Kim JW, Song JY, Park S, Lee HJ, Chung JH. Association of polymorphisms in nicotinic acetylcholine receptor alpha 4 subunit gene (CHRNA4), mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1), and ethanol-metabolizing enzyme genes with alcoholism in Korean patients. Alcohol. 2004;34(2–3):115–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim SG, Kim CM, Kang DH, Kim YJ, Byun WT, Kim SY, Park JM, Kim MJ, Oslin DW. Association of functional opioid receptor genotypes with alcohol dependence in Koreans. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(7):986–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Koller G, Zill P, Rujescu D, Ridinger M, Pogarell O, Fehr C, Wodarz N, Bondy B, Soyka M, Preuss UW. Possible association between OPRM1 genetic variance at the 118 locus and alcohol dependence in a large treatment sample: relationship to alcohol dependence symptoms. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36(7):1230–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loh el W, Fann CS, Chang YT, Chang CJ, Cheng AT. Endogenous opioid receptor genes and alcohol dependence among Taiwanese Han. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28(1):15–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miranda R, Ray L, Justus A, Meyerson LA, Knopik VS, McGeary J, Monti PM. Initial evidence of an association between OPRM1 and adolescent alcohol misuse. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010;34(1):112–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nishizawa D, Han W, Hasegawa J, Ishida T, Numata Y, Sato T, Kawai A, Ikeda K. Association of mu-opioid receptor gene polymorphism A118G with alcohol dependence in a Japanese population. Neuropsychobiology. 2006;53(3):137–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huang C, Jin AH, Li CH, Han HM, Pu XX. The relation between OPRM1 gene A118G polymorphism and alcoholic liver disease, alcohol-dependent in Korean-Chinese and Han nationality men of Yanbian area. Journal of Medical Science Yanbian University. 2012;35(3):199–205.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sander T, Gscheidel N, Wendel B, Samochowiec J, Smolka M, Rommelspacher H, Schmidt LG, Hoehe MR. Human mu-opioid receptor variation and alcohol dependence. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1998;22(9):2108–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schinka JA, Town T, Abdullah L, Crawford FC, Ordorica PI, Francis E, Hughes P, Graves AB, Mortimer JA, Mullan M. A functional polymorphism within the mu-opioid receptor gene and risk for abuse of alcohol and other substances. Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7(2):224–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jin JD, JH P. Relationship between A118G polymorphism of OPRM1 gene and alcohol dependence. China Journal of Modern Medicine. 2015;25(3):7–10.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang H, Luo X, Kranzler HR, Lappalainen J, Yang BZ, Krupitsky E, Zvartau E, Gelernter J. Association between two mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) haplotype blocks and drug or alcohol dependence. Hum Mol Genet. 2006;15(6):807–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dou SJ, Jing Q. A association study of OPRM1 gene A118G polymorphism and alcohol dependence. Congress of Genetics Society of China Proceedings. 2011;239Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Myers CE, Rego J, Haber P, Morley K, Beck KD, Hogarth L, Moustafa AA. Learning and generalization from reward and punishment in opioid addiction. Behav Brain Res. 2016;317:122–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mechling AE, Arefin T, Lee HL, Bienert T, Reisert M, Ben Hamida S, Darcq E, Ehrlich A, Gaveriaux-Ruff C, Parent MJ, et al. Deletion of the mu opioid receptor gene in mice reshapes the reward-aversion connectome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113(41):11603–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ziauddeen H, Nestor LJ, Subramaniam N, Dodds C, Nathan PJ, Miller SR, Sarai BK, Maltby K, Fernando D, Warren L, et al. Opioid antagonists and the A118G polymorphism in the mu-opioid receptor gene: effects of GSK1521498 and naltrexone in healthy drinkers stratified by OPRM1 genotype. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;41(11):2647–57.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Verhagen M, Kleinjan M, Engels RC. A systematic review of the A118G (Asn40Asp) variant of OPRM1 in relation to smoking initiation, nicotine dependence and smoking cessation. Pharmacogenomics. 2012;13(8):917–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu X, Mao B, Wu L, Liu L, Rui J, Chen G. A118G polymorphism in mu-opioid receptor gene and Interactions with smoking and drinking on risk of Oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Clin Lab Anal. 2017;31(1)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tan EC, Tan CH, Karupathivan U, Yap EP. Mu opioid receptor gene polymorphisms and heroin dependence in Asian populations. Neuroreport. 2003;14(4):569–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kapur S, Sharad S, Singh RA, Gupta AK. A118g polymorphism in mu opioid receptor gene (oprm1): association with opiate addiction in subjects of Indian origin. J Integr Neurosci. 2007;6(4):511–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Henderson-Redmond AN, Yuill MB, Lowe TE, Kline AM, Zee ML, Guindon J, Morgan DJ. Morphine-induced antinociception and reward in "humanized" mice expressing the mu opioid receptor A118G polymorphism. Brain Res Bull. 2016;123:5–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rouvinen-Lagerstrom N, Lahti J, Alho H, Kovanen L, Aalto M, Partonen T, Silander K, Sinclair D, Raikkonen K, Eriksson JG, et al. Mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) polymorphism A118G: lack of association in Finnish populations with alcohol dependence or alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol. 2013;48(5):519–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(10):991–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Matsuda H. The importance of type II error and falsifiability. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2004;17(1):137–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryPeking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain MedicineMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard UniversityBostonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Breast Surgical OncologyChina National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical CollegeBeijingPeople’s Republic of China
  4. 4.Department of NeurosurgeryShanghai Institute of Neurosurgery, PLA Institute of Neurosurgery, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations