Skip to main content

Correlation between growth differentiation factor 5 (rs143383) gene polymorphism and knee osteoarthritis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

A great deal of evidence has supported that growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF5) is associated with the occurrence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), while their results are not consistent. In the present study, we aimed to explore the association between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA for a more credible conclusion.

Methods

Comprehensive literature searches were carried out in English databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane, and Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG, and VIP database. After the data were extracted from the required studies, the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined to assess the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA. The publication bias was evaluated by funnel plot.

Results

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 studies on the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA occurrence were eligible for meta-analysis. Among these articles, four studies showed no apparent correlation, while the other 11 studies indicated an obvious correlation. Meanwhile, we also carried out a subgroup analysis of the population. Due to the inevitable heterogeneity, three genetic models were finally selected for analysis. With the allele model (C versus T: OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.73~0.87), recessive model (CC versus CT + TT: OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.68~0.86), and homozygous model (CC versus TT: OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.58~0.76), GDF5 gene polymorphism decreased the risk of KOA. Besides, a significant association was observed in Caucasians, Asians, and Africans. Meanwhile, the protective effect of genotype C (or CC) in the Asian group was little obvious than that in the Caucasian group and the African group. Although the quality of the included studies was above medium-quality, we obtained results with a low level of evidence.

Conclusions

The results of the meta-analysis showed that the genotype C (or CC) of GDF5 protected against KOA occurrence in Caucasian, Asian, and African populations.

Introduction

As the most common degenerative joint disease, osteoarthritis (OA) is the main factor of pain and disability in people aged over 45 years [1]. Although OA is common in the knee, it can also affect any other joints, including the hand and hip [2, 3]. The main pathogenesis of such disease involves irreversible destruction of cartilage, accompanied by the disrupted dynamic balance of chondrocytes, and the changes in other tissues [4]. However, the exact pathogenesis remains largely unclear, while it is believed that heredity greatly contributes to the pathogenesis of this disease [5].

Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), which accounts for more than 90% of human gene polymorphism, is the most common and stable gene variation in the human DNA chain [6]. As a member of the transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) superfamily, growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF5) plays a considerable role in the development, maintenance, and repair of cartilage and bone. Due to its important function, GDF5 is considered to be related to the OA [7].

A great deal of previous meta-analysis has supported that there is a correlation between GDF5 and knee osteoarthritis (KOA), while the research results remain contradictory. Some defects exist in the previous meta-analyses, such as the incorrect data extraction and the limitations of population subgroup analysis. On the other hand, there has been an update of the literature. In our present meta-analysis, we systematically and comprehensively evaluated the correlation between the GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA occurrence.

Materials and methods

Literature retrieval

Based on the guidelines for the Preferred Reporting Item of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), a comprehensive literature search was conducted in English databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane, and Chinese databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WANFANG, and VIP database (the latest literature was updated to July 13, 2020). We used a combination of medical subject heading terms (“GDF5” or “growth and differentiation factor 5” or “rs143383”) and (“polymorphism” or “SNP”) and (“osteoarthritis” or “OA”). Besides, references that could be included from the reviews and clinical trials were also manually searched.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria in this meta-analysis were set as follows: (1) human studies; (2) studies with a case-control group (case group: KOA subjects diagnosed by radiology; control group: subjects without the history of OA and autoimmune diseases); (3) studies on the relationship between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA susceptibility; and (4) studies with sufficient specific data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria were set as follows: animal model studies, reviews, case reports, expert opinions, and conference summaries. All the retrieved studies were screened by two reviewers according to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria.

Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the included studies by two independent reviewers: the first author, the year of publication, the country and population of the subjects, the genotyping method, the number of alleles in the case group and control group, the sample size of the subjects in the case group and control group, and the P value for the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) test in the control group.

Assessment of study quality

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [8] was used to assess the quality of all studies based on the following three dimensions: selection (four items, 1 point each), comparability (one item, maximum 2 points), and exposure/outcome (three items, 1 point each). The score of each study ranged from 0 (worst) to 9 (best). The quality of each study was judged by two reviewers as low, medium, and high when a score of 0–3, 4–6, and 7–9 was obtained, respectively. If there was a difference in the scores given by the two reviewers, a consensus would be eventually reached through the discussion of each study.

Statistical analysis

To clarify the relationship between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA susceptibility, the overall ORs and 95% CIs of the following five models were calculated: allele model (C versus T), dominant model (CC + CT versus TT), recessive model (CC versus CT + TT), heterozygous model (CT versus TT), and homozygous model (CC versus TT).

The heterogeneity test between studies was performed based on the Q statistics and I2 statistics of all studies in each model. If P < 0.1 and I2 ≥ 50%, it was considered that a large heterogeneity existed [9], and then the random-effects model was used. Otherwise, the fixed-effects model was chosen [10]. The source of heterogeneity was analyzed by subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis by omitting each study in turn, and the publication bias was assessed using the funnel plot. The Review Manager 5.4 software (the Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) was used for the abovementioned analyses.

Results

Characteristics of the included studies

A total of 291 studies were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed (n = 68), Embase (n = 74), WOS (n = 137), Cochrane (n = 5), CNKI (n = 2), WANFANG (n = 5), and VIP database (n = 1), while one study was obtained by manual search. After removing repeated studies, and reading titles and abstracts, 22 studies were obtained. According to the established exclusion and inclusion criteria, eight articles were excluded (one letter, six reviews, and one article which could not extract allele frequency). Finally, 14 articles (15 studies) [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24] consisting of 5524 KOA patients and 10,000 healthy controls were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure1

Flow chart of the study enrollment process

Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics and quality of these 15 studies and gene frequency, including 13 high-score studies, and two medium-score studies. HWE test, which was used to analyze and evaluate the reliability of subjects’ choices in each study, indicated that the included studies were reliable.

Table 1 Characteristics of published studies for associations between GDF5 gene polymorphisms and KOA. Genotype and allelic distribution of GDF5 (C/T) gene polymorphisms among KOA patients and control individuals
Table 2 Quality assessment of case-control studies

Meta-analysis results

During the meta-analysis, we found that there was large heterogeneity in all five genetic models. The random-effects model was selected for analysis, and the source of heterogeneity was further analyzed. The aggregate data of all studies showed that genotype C (or CC) in the GDF5 gene polymorphism had a significant protective effect against KOA. Table 3 presents the details: allele model (C versus T: OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74~0.93, P<0.00001), dominant model (CC + CT versus TT: OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67~0.90, P<0.00001), recessive model (CC versus CT + TT: OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65~0.99, P = 0.0002), heterozygous model (CT versus TT: OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.69~0.91, P<0.0001), and homozygous model (CC versus TT: OR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55~0.90, P<0.00001).

Table 3 Evaluation of the association between GDF5 gene polymorphisms and KOA susceptibility

Subgroup analysis and heterogeneity analysis

To identify the source of heterogeneity, the subgroup analysis was performed, since previous studies have shown different results in various populations [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Three subgroups, Caucasian, Asian, and African groups, were included in this analysis according to the population of the subjects. Table 3 presents the results of subgroup analysis that genotype C (or CC) in the GDF5 gene polymorphism still had a significant protective effect against KOA in the Caucasian group, Asian group, and African group. The I2 > 50% in the subgroups of the dominant model and heterozygous model could not reduce the heterogeneity by excluding each study. Consequently, these two genetic models were not suitable for the evaluation of the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA. In the other three genetic models, the heterogeneity of the Caucasian group (allele model: P = 0.23, I2 = 30%; recessive model: P = 0.80, I2 = 0%; homozygous model: P = 0.54, I2 = 0%) and African group (allele model: P = 0.39, I2 = 0%; recessive model: P = 0.51, I2 = 0%; homozygous model: P = 0.54, I2 = 0%) was low, which could even be 0%, while that of the Asian group (allele model: P<0.00001, I2 = 86%; recessive model: P<0.00001, I2 = 79%; homozygous model: P<0.00001, I2 = 83%) was relatively high. The study of the Asian group could be inferred as the source of heterogeneity. After the studies of Shin et al. [17] and Zhang et al. [24] were excluded from the allele model, the heterogeneity of the subgroup and the population was significantly decreased (Asian group: P = 0.18, I2 = 32%; overall: P = 0.15, I2 = 30%). After the study of Zhang et al. [24] was excluded, the heterogeneity was decreased in the recessive model (Asian group: P = 0.52, I2 = 0%; overall: P = 0.73, I2 = 0%. Fig. 2) and homozygous model (Asian group: P = 0.22, I2 = 26%; overall: P = 0.39, I2 = 6%. Fig. 3). Moreover, we carefully analyzed the study of Zhang et al. [24] and found that the OR and 95% CI calculated based on the data provided in this article were not consistent with the final results in the original text. We thought that unreliable data might be the source of heterogeneity. However, after analyzing the study of Shin et al. [17], we did not find anything that could explain the heterogeneity. Therefore, the study of Shin et al. [17] could not be eliminated. Heterogeneity in the allele model was hardly changed (Asian group: P = 0.002, I2 = 69%; overall: P = 0.009, I2 = 54%. Fig. 4).

Fig. 2
figure2

Forest plot of the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA risk. Recessive model (CC versus CT + TT)

Fig. 3
figure3

Forest plot of the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA risk. Homozygous model (CC versus TT)

Fig. 4
figure4

Forest plot of the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA risk. Allele model (C versus T)

Sensitivity analysis

Compared with the original results, there was no obvious difference between the results of sensitivity analysis and the original results, suggesting that the overall results were stable (method: omitting each study in turn).

Publication bias

In order to assess the publication bias of the literature, funnel plots, Egger’s test, and Begg’s test were performed. The funnel plots indicated that there was no obvious publication bias (Figs. 5, 6, and 7). Meanwhile, the Egger’s test was performed to provide the statistical evidence (allele model: P = 0.386, recessive model: P = 0.776, and homozygous model: P = 0.356).

Fig. 5
figure5

Funnel plot for publication bias among selected studies. Allele mode (C versus T)

Fig. 6
figure6

Funnel plot for publication bias among selected studies. Recessive model (CC versus CT + TT)

Fig. 7
figure7

Funnel plot for publication bias among selected studies. Homozygous model (CC versus TT)

GRADE evidence evaluation

This study contains a total of three genetic model analyses. The quality of evidence for each analysis result is low (Table 4).

Table 4 GRADE evidence evaluation

Discussion

As a common crippling disease, OA has a great impact on patients and society [25, 26]. Among all types of OA, KOA gives the most burden for people [27]. Up to date, there is no particularly effective way to cure KOA except for total knee arthroplasty. Although OA is considered to be a multifactorial disease, it has been reported that genetic factors play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease [28]. Previous studies have shown the correlation between GDF5 (rs143383) gene polymorphism and KOA. However, the conclusions of these different studies are not consistent. The studies of Cao et al. [11], Shin et al. [17], Takahashi et al. [18], and Tsezou et al. [20] have indicated that there is no obvious correlation between the GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA. Therefore, we aimed to explore the correlation between GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA in this meta-analysis.

In recent years, a great deal of attention has been paid to the GDF5 gene. GDF5, a member of the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) family, is involved in a variety of cellular processes related to bone repairs, such as proliferation, differentiation, and angiogenesis, as well as bone and cartilage formation [29]. Like other BMPs, GDF5 can initiate its signal cascade by binding to transmembrane serine/threonine kinase I and type II receptors. The binding of GDF5 leads to the phosphorylation of the receptor, which activates the downstream Smad signaling pathway, and then Smads shift to the nucleus to regulate the transcription of various genes [30,31,32]. Another pathway is that both GDF5 and BMP2 bind to type I receptors, and the recruitment of type II receptors by the ternary complex causes the polymer complex to trigger the MAPK pathway [33]. These are examples of how GDF5 works. Mutations in genes can lead to the loss of their original function or even the adverse effect. Therefore, it seems to be a good idea to prevent KOA in advance by studying the correlation between the GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA occurrence.

In our present meta-analysis, we abandoned the dominant model and heterozygous model because of the irreducible heterogeneity. In the remaining three genetic models, the analysis of overall studies, Caucasian group, Asian group, and African group showed that the GDF5 gene polymorphism was significantly associated with the susceptibility to KOA, suggesting that genotype C (or CC) had a protective effect against KOA. However, in the studies of Cao et al. [11], Shin et al. [17], Takahashi et al. [18], and Tsezou et al. [20], there is no obvious correlation between the GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA. After the included studies were merged, the results became meaningful among the Caucasian group, Asian group, and African group. Furthermore, we found that the protective effect of genotype C (or CC) in the Asian group was slightly more obvious compared with the Caucasian group and African group. However, the differences among the subgroups were not significant (Table 3 and Figs. 2, 3, and 4). This finding suggested that the difference in population had little effect on the correlation between the GDF5 gene polymorphism and KOA. As far as we know, there have been some meta-analyses of GDF5 and KOA, such as the recent study by Kazem et al. [34]. After studying these works, we found that minor mistakes existed in the data extraction of some studies, such as the study of Miyamoto et al. [14]. Besides, the subgroup analysis of the previous meta-analysis is only done in the Caucasian group and Asian group. Therefore, we included the African population data in our meta-analysis, although there were only two studies. The protective function provided by genotype C (or CC) of GDF5 was also observed in the African group. The GRADE evidence quality evaluation system was used by us to evaluate the results of the analysis, which was not available in other meta-analyses.

Nevertheless, there are some defects in the present analysis. First, the language was restricted to English and Chinese, which might limit the research population and lead to bias. Secondly, there was no more stratified analysis of factors (including gender, BMI, and so on). Although the included studies are all medium- or high-quality studies, the subject of this meta-analysis is different from traditional case-control studies, which made upgrade non-existent. According to the GRADE methodology quality evaluation, the analysis results of the three genetic models are all at low levels of evidence. Further research may have an important impact on the confidence interval of the effect size and may change the effect size. We still need to wait for more well-designed case-control studies to be added to the analysis.

Conclusions

Collectively, our current meta-analysis suggested that GDF5 gene polymorphism was associated with KOA susceptibility. In the three genetic models (allele model, recessive model, and homozygous model), genotype C (or CC) of GDF5 had a protective effect against KOA in Caucasian, Asian, and African populations.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Abbreviations

GDF5:

Growth differentiation factor 5

KOA:

Knee osteoarthritis

WOS:

Web of Science

CNKI:

China National Knowledge Infrastructure

CIs:

Confidence intervals

OA:

Osteoarthritis

SNP:

Single nucleotide polymorphism

TGF-β:

Transforming growth factor β

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Item of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

HWE:

Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium

NOS:

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

BMPs:

Bone morphogenetic proteins

References

  1. 1.

    Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Nolte S, Ackerman I, Fransen M, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(7):1323–30. https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204763 Epub 2014/02/21. PubMed PMID: 24553908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Martel-Pelletier J, Barr AJ, Cicuttini FM, Conaghan PG, Cooper C, Goldring MB, et al. Osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16072. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.72 Epub 2016/10/14. PubMed PMID: 27734845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Nelson AE, Smith MW, Golightly YM, Jordan JM. “Generalized osteoarthritis”: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2014;43(6):713-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.12.007. Epub 2014/01/28. PubMed PMID: 24461078; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4065634

  4. 4.

    Houard X, Goldring MB, Berenbaum F. Homeostatic mechanisms in articular cartilage and role of inflammation in osteoarthritis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2013;15(11):375. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11926-013-0375-6. Epub 2013/09/28. PubMed PMID: 24072604; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3989071.

  5. 5.

    Lanyon P, Muir K, Doherty S, Doherty M. Assessment of a genetic contribution to osteoarthritis of the hip: sibling study. BMJ. 2000;321(7270):1179-83. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7270.1179. Epub 2000/11/10. PubMed PMID: 11073507; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC27520.

  6. 6.

    Collins FS, Brooks LD, Chakravarti A. A DNA polymorphism discovery resource for research on human genetic variation. Genome Res. 1998;8(12):1229–31. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.8.12.1229 Epub 1999/01/05. PubMed PMID: 9872978.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Southam L, Rodriguez-Lopez J, Wilkins JM, Pombo-Suarez M, Snelling S, Gomez-Reino JJ, et al. An SNP in the 5'-UTR of GDF5 is associated with osteoarthritis susceptibility in Europeans and with in vivo differences in allelic expression in articular cartilage. Hum Mol Genet. 2007;16(18):2226–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddm174 Epub 2007/07/10. PubMed PMID: 17616513.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z Epub 2010/07/24. PubMed PMID: 20652370.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186 Epub 2002/07/12 PubMed PMID: 12111919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45(Pt A):139-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.002. Epub 2015/09/08. PubMed PMID: 26343745; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4639420.

  11. 11.

    Cao Z, Lee HS, Song JH, oon JWY, Park YoK, Nam SW, et al. Growth differentiation factor 5 [GDF5] Core promoter polymorphism is not associated with susceptibility to osteoarthritis of the knee in the Korean population. Korean J Pathol. 2010;44(4):404-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2010.44.4.404.

  12. 12.

    Abd Elazeem MI, Abdelaleem EA, Mohamed RA. Genetic influence of growth and differentiation factor 5 gene polymorphism (+104T/C) on the development of knee osteoarthritis and its association with disease severity. Eur J Rheumatol. 2017;4(2):98-103. doi: https://doi.org/10.5152/eurjrheum.2017.160093. Epub 2017/06/24. PubMed PMID: 28638680; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5473463.

  13. 13.

    Mishra A, Srivastava RN, Awasthi S, Parmar D, Mishra P. Expression of genes and their polymorphism influences the risk of knee osteoarthritis. J Nucleic Acids. 2017;2017:3138254. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3138254. Epub 2017/11/14. PubMed PMID: 29129999; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5654253.

  14. 14.

    Miyamoto Y, Mabuchi A, Shi D, Kubo T, Takatori Y, Saito S, et al. A functional polymorphism in the 5' UTR of GDF5 is associated with susceptibility to osteoarthritis. Nat Genet. 2007;39(4):529–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/2005 Epub 2007/03/27 PubMed PMID: 17384641.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mohasseb DMF, Saba EKA, Saad NLM, Sarofeem ADH. Genetic association between growth differentiation factor 5 single nucleotide polymorphism and primary knee osteoarthritis in a group of Egyptian patients: a pilot study. Mediterr J Rheumatol. 2019;30(2):114-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.31138/mjr.30.2.114. Epub 2020/03/19. PubMed PMID: 32185351; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7045969.

  16. 16.

    Ozcan SS, Korkmaz M, Balbaloglu O, Percin F, Yilmaz N, Erdogan Y, et al. Polymorphisms in the growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF 5) gene in knee osteoarthritis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2017;27(10):602-5. doi: 2717. Epub 2017/10/24. PubMed PMID: 29056119.

  17. 17.

    Shin MH, Lee SJ, Kee SJ, Song SK, Kweon SS, Park DJ, et al. Genetic association analysis of GDF5 and ADAM12 for knee osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2012;79(5):488–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.10.016 Epub 2012/01/31. PubMed PMID: 22284607.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Takahashi H, Nakajima M, Ozaki K, Tanaka T, Kamatani N, Ikegawa S. Prediction model for knee osteoarthritis based on genetic and clinical information. Arthritis Res Ther. 2010;12(5):R187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/ar3157. Epub 2010/10/14. PubMed PMID: 20939878; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2991022.

  19. 19.

    Tawonsawatruk T, Changthong T, Pingsuthiwong S, Trachoo O, Sura T, Wajanavisit W. A genetic association study between growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF 5) polymorphism and knee osteoarthritis in Thai population. J Orthop Surg Res. 2011;6:47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-6-47. Epub 2011/09/23. PubMed PMID: 21936909; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3189142.

  20. 20.

    Tsezou A, Satra M, Oikonomou P, Bargiotas K, Malizos KN. The growth differentiation factor 5 (GDF5) core promoter polymorphism is not associated with knee osteoarthritis in the Greek population. J Orthop Res. 2008;26(1):136–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.20464 Epub 2007/08/07. PubMed PMID: 17676627.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vaes RB, Rivadeneira F, Kerkhof JM, Hofman A, Pols HA, Uitterlinden AG, et al. Genetic variation in the GDF5 region is associated with osteoarthritis, height, hip axis length and fracture risk: the Rotterdam study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(11):1754–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.099655 Epub 2008/11/26. PubMed PMID: 19029166.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Valdes AM, Spector TD, Doherty S, Wheeler M, Hart DJ, Doherty M. Association of the DVWA and GDF5 polymorphisms with osteoarthritis in UK populations. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68(12):1916–20. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2008.102236 Epub 2008/12/05. PubMed PMID: 19054821.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Yao C JDQ. A single nucleid polymorphisms (SNP) in the 5′UTR of GDF5 is associated with knee osteoarthritis. Jiangsu Med J 2008;34(3)::1198-1199. 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-013-3059-z

  24. 24.

    Zhang S, Wang J, Ji H, Jia H, Guan D. Interaction between GDF5 gene polymorphisms and environment factors increased the risk of knee osteoarthritis: a case-control study. Biosci Rep. 2019;39(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20182423. Epub 2019/02/20. PubMed PMID: 30777926; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6390126.

  25. 25.

    Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Arden NK. Incidence and risk factors for clinically diagnosed knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis: influences of age, gender and osteoarthritis affecting other joints. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73(9):1659-64. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203355. Epub 2013/06/08. PubMed PMID: 23744977; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3875433.

  26. 26.

    Hunter DJ, Schofield D, Callander E. The individual and socioeconomic impact of osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014;10(7):437–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2014.44 Epub 2014/03/26. PubMed PMID: 24662640.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Wright EA, Katz JN, Cisternas MG, Kessler CL, Wagenseller A, Losina E. Impact of knee osteoarthritis on health care resource utilization in a US population-based national sample. Med Care. 2010;48(9):785-91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181e419b1. Epub 2010/08/14. PubMed PMID: 20706165; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3258446.

  28. 28.

    Cooper C, Snow S, McAlindon TE, Kellingray S, Stuart B, Coggon D, et al. Risk factors for the incidence and progression of radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(5):995–1000. https://doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200005)43:5<995::AID-ANR6>3.0.CO;2-1 Epub 2000/05/19. PubMed PMID: 10817551.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Jin L, Li X. Growth differentiation factor 5 regulation in bone regeneration. Curr Pharm Des. 2013;19(19):3364–73. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612811319190003 Epub 2013/02/26. PubMed PMID: 23432680.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hata A, Seoane J, Lagna G, Montalvo E, Hemmati-Brivanlou A, Massague J. OAZ uses distinct DNA- and protein-binding zinc fingers in separate BMP-Smad and Olf signaling pathways. Cell. 2000;100(2):229–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81561-5 Epub 2000/02/05. PubMed PMID: 10660046.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Aoki H, Fujii M, Imamura T, Yagi K, Takehara K, Kato M, et al. Synergistic effects of different bone morphogenetic protein type I receptors on alkaline phosphatase induction. J Cell Sci. 2001;114(Pt 8):1483–9 Epub 2001/04/03. PubMed PMID: 11282024.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wu G, Chen YG, Ozdamar B, Gyuricza CA, Chong PA, Wrana JL, et al. Structural basis of Smad2 recognition by the Smad anchor for receptor activation. Science. 2000;287(5450):92–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5450.92 Epub 1999/12/30. PubMed PMID: 10615055.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Schwaerzer GK, Hiepen C, Schrewe H, Nickel J, Ploeger F, Sebald W, et al. New insights into the molecular mechanism of multiple synostoses syndrome (SYNS): mutation within the GDF5 knuckle epitope causes noggin-resistance. J Bone Miner Res. 2012;27(2):429–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.532 Epub 2011/10/07. PubMed PMID: 21976273.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Aghili K, Sobhan MR, Mehdinezhad-Yazdi M, Jafari M, Miresmaeili SM, Rastegar S, et al. Association of GDF-5 rs143383 polymorphism with radiographic defined knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop. 2018;15(4):945-51. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2018.08.033. Epub 2018/09/12. PubMed PMID: 30202144; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC6128174.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (81802151); Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2019MH012), postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (2018 M642616), Qingdao Applied basic Research Youth Project (19-6-2-55-cg).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Bin Jia designed the research and wrote the manuscript, Yaping Jiang and Yingxing Xu were responsible for document screening and data extraction, Yingzhen Wang was responsible for data analysis and charting, and Tao Li was responsible for the final review. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yingzhen Wang or Tao Li.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors agree to publish.

Competing interests

All the other authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jia, B., Jiang, Y., Xu, Y. et al. Correlation between growth differentiation factor 5 (rs143383) gene polymorphism and knee osteoarthritis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res 16, 146 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02269-w

Download citation

Keywords

  • Growth differentiation factor 5
  • Knee osteoarthritis
  • Genepolymorphism
  • Protection