4.2 Article

Assessing the HLA diversity of cord blood units collected from a birth clinic caring for pregnant women in an ethnically diverse metropolitan area

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 1046-1054

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12379

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundNew strategies are emerging in cord blood banking where focusing on birth clinics caring for a high number of mothers belonging to ethnic minorities could offer new possibilities for allotransplantation both for patients of European origin and for patients from ethnic minorities or mixed ancestries. Study Design and MethodsMarseilles Cord Blood Bank works with one university birth clinic caring for a culturally and sociologically diverse population. Stringent French legal restrictions apply to recording the geographic origin of parents. To circumvent this limitation and evaluate the contribution of newly banked cord blood units (CBUs) to increasing HLA diversity, we applied an algorithm that allows for the determination of parents' putative haplotypes and thus grossly deduce information on their ancestry. Generic resolution HLA-A, HLA-B, and allelic resolution HLA-DRB1 genotyping for 328 CBUs and 2691 unrelated donors (UDs) between January 2009 and May 2012 were performed. Enrichment from international CBU registry with nonreferenced generic HLA-A, HLA-B, and allelic HLA-DRB1 phenotypes was compared between CBUs identified with one or two non-European haplotypes and CBUs identified with two European haplotypes. ResultsMarseilles CBUs display an increased proportion of HLA antigens frequently expressed in African populations compared to UDs. Whereas 93% of 199 CBUs identified with one or two non-European haplotypes enrich international CBU registry, this result is reduced to 42% for the 129 CBUs identified with two European haplotypes. ConclusionThis study supports a new method to assess HLA diversity. However, such an increased of HLA diversity raises questions about frequencies of CBUs released and clinical relevance from their uses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据