4.6 Article

Evaluation of KIR3DL1/KIR3DS1 allelic polymorphisms in Kenyan children with endemic Burkitt lymphoma

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275046

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the association between KIR3DL1 and KIR3DS1 genotypes and endemic Burkitt lymphoma (eBL). The results showed no significant difference in these genotypes between eBL patients and healthy controls, suggesting that the pathogenesis of eBL may not simply involve variations in these genotypes.
Endemic Burkitt lymphoma (eBL) is a fast-growing germinal center B cell lymphoma, affecting 5-10 per 100,000 children annually, in the equatorial belt of Africa. We hypothesize that co-infections with Plasmodium falciparum (Pf) malaria and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) impair host natural killer (NK) and T cell responses to tumor cells, and thus increase the risk of eBL pathogenesis. NK cell education is partially controlled by killer immunoglobulin-like receptors and variable expression of KIR3DL1 has been associated with other malignancies. Here, we investigated whether KIR3D-mediated mechanisms contribute to eBL, by testing for an association of KIR3DL1/KIR3DS1 genotypes with the disease in 108 eBL patients and 99 healthy Kenyan children. KIR3DL1 allelic typing and EBV loads were assessed by PCR. We inferred previously observed phenotypes from the genotypes. The frequencies of KIR3DL1/KIR3DL1 and KIR3DL1/KIR3DS1 did not differ significantly between cases and controls. Additionally, none of the study participants was homozygous for KIR3DS1 alleles. EBV loads did not differ by the KIR3DL1 genotypes nor were they different between eBL survivors and non-survivors. Our results suggest that eBL pathogenesis may not simply involve variations in KIR3DL1 and KIR3DS1 genotypes. However, considering the complexity of the KIR3DL1 locus, this study could not exclude a role for copy number variation in eBL pathogenesis.

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

4.6
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