4.4 Article

Common, intermediate and well-documented HLA alleles in world populations: CIWD version 3.0.0

期刊

HLA
卷 95, 期 6, 页码 516-531

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/tan.13811

关键词

alleles; ethnic groups; gene frequency; HLA

资金

  1. Office of Naval Research [N00014-18-1-2359]
  2. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  3. Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports under the program NPU I [LO1506]
  4. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic - Czech health research council [NV18-03-00277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A catalog of common, intermediate and well-documented (CIWD) HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, -DRB3, -DRB4, -DRB5, -DQB1 and -DPB1 alleles has been compiled from over 8 million individuals using data from 20 unrelated hematopoietic stem cell volunteer donor registries. Individuals are divided into seven geographic/ancestral/ethnic groups and data are summarized for each group and for the total population. P (two-field) and G group assignments are divided into one of four frequency categories: common (>= 1 in 10 000), intermediate (>= 1 in 100 000), well-documented (>= 5 occurrences) or not-CIWD. Overall 26% of alleles in IPD-IMGT/HLA version 3.31.0 at P group resolution fall into the three CIWD categories. The two-field catalog includes 18% (n = 545) common, 17% (n = 513) intermediate, and 65% (n = 1997) well-documented alleles. Full-field allele frequency data are provided but are limited in value by the variations in resolution used by the registries. A recommended CIWD list is based on the most frequent category in the total or any of the seven geographic/ancestral/ethnic groups. Data are also provided so users can compile a catalog specific to the population groups that they serve. Comparisons are made to three previous CWD reports representing more limited population groups. This catalog, CIWD version 3.0.0, is a step closer to the collection of global HLA frequencies and to a clearer view of HLA diversity in the human population as a whole.

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

4.4
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