Single nucleotide polymorphisms within HLA region are associated with disease relapse for patients with unrelated cord blood transplantation


Abstract

Similar to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), disease relapse occurs in unrelated cord blood transplantation (CBT) even the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) alleles are fully matched between donor and recipient. A total of fourteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within the region of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) have been reported previously by Petersdorf et al. (Blood 2013;121:1896-1905) and Piras et al . ( Bone Marrow Transplant. 2014;49:1400-1404) to associate with transplantation determinants post-HSCT. The genomic sequences within 500 base pairs upstream and downstream of the fourteen HSCT-related SNPs were analyzed in this study to investigate whether geneticvariants within the MHC region are associated with disease relapse of unrelated HLA-matched CBT. A panel of seven SNPs was revealed to associate with the risk of relapse after unrelated CBT after analysis of fifty-three donor-recipient pairs. These SNPs included the donor type SNPs of rs2523675 and rs2518028 at the telomeric end of HCP5 gene, rs 2071479 in the intron of HLA-DOB gene, and rs 2523958 in the MICD gene; and the recipient type SNPs of rs 9276982 in the HLA-DOA gene and rs435766 and rs 380924 in the MICD gene. These SNPs have not yet been reported to associate with the transplant outcome of HSCT, implying that different SNPs were associated with the effectiveness of unrelated HSCT and CBT. As measured by pair-wise linkage disequilibrium (LD), the SNP of rs2523675 had high LD with the SNPs of rs4713466 (D’ = 0.86) and rs2523676 (D’ = 0.91) in the HCP5 gene. The SNP of rs2518028 had no LD with all other SNPs except rs2523675. This study provides a basis to meliorate strategies of searching and selecting better candidate donors for unrelated CBT.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. That said, if the manuscript is accepted for publication then the reviewer reports can be optionally signed and made public (see below).
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).
  • If the article is accepted, then the authors are given the option to reproduce the reviewer reports, and their full revision history, alongside their finally published article. In those instances, the comments of the reviewers will be made public (although reviewers' names will never be revealed unless the reviewer opted to sign their review, as noted above).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.