4.2 Article

Mapping molecular HLA typing data to UNOS antigen equivalents

期刊

HUMAN IMMUNOLOGY
卷 79, 期 11, 页码 781-789

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.humimm.2018.08.002

关键词

-

资金

  1. UNOS Histocompatibility Committee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Histocompatibility labs must convert molecular HLA typing data to antigen equivalencies for entry into the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) UNet system. While an Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) policy document provides general guidelines for conversion, the process is complex because no antigen mapping table is available. We present a UNOS antigen equivalency table for all IPD-IMGT/HLA alleles at the A, B, C, DRB1, DRB3/4/5, DQA1, and DQB1 loci. Methods: An automated script was developed to generate a UNOS antigen equivalency table. Data sources used in the conversion algorithm included the World Marrow Donor Association (WMDA) antigen table, the HLA Dictionary, and UNOS-provided tables. To validate antigen mappings, we converted National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) high resolution allele frequencies to antigen equivalents and compared with the UNOS Calculated Panel Reactive Antibodies (CPRA) reference panel. Results: Normalized frequency similarity scores between independent NMDP and UNOS panels for 4 US population categories (Caucasian, Hispanic, African American and Asian/Pacific Islander) ranged from 0.85 to 0.97, indicating correct antigen mapping. An open source web application (ALLele to ANtigen (ALLAN)) and web services were also developed to map unambiguous and ambiguous HLA typing data to UNOS antigen equivalents based on NMDP population-specific allele frequencies (http://www.transplanttoolbox.org). Conclusions: Computer-assisted interpretation of molecular HLA data may aid in reducing typing discrepancies in UNet. This work also sets a foundation for molecular typing data to be utilized directly in the UNet match run as well as the virtual crossmatch process at transplant centers.

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