4.6 Article

Major histocompatibility locus genetic markers of beryllium sensitization and disease

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 18, 期 4, 页码 677-684

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.01.00106201

关键词

berylliosis; genetic susceptibility; human leukocyte antigen-DPGlu69; human leukocyte antigen-DR; tumour necrosis factor-alpha

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypersensitivity to beryllium (Be) is found in 1-16% of exposed workers undergoing immunological screening for beryllium disease using the beryllium lymphocyte proliferation test (BeLPT). However, only similar to 50% of BeLPT-positive workers present with lung granulomas (i.e. berylliosis). As berylliosis is associated with the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DP supratypic marker DPGlu69, the authors asked whether this marker is differentially associated with disease presentation. A population of 639 workers from a beryllium factory undergoing BeLPT screening was evaluated in a nested case-control study for the prevalence of HLA-DPGlu69, the HLA-DPB1, HLA-DQ and HLA-DR alleles and of the biallelic tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha polymorphism TNF-alpha -308 in 23 individuals presenting as sensitized (i.e. BeLPT-positive without lung granulomas) and in 22 presenting as diseased (i.e. BeLPT-positive with granulomas in the lung biopsy). The HLA-DPGlu69 marker was associated with disease (odds ratio (OR) 3.7, p=0.016, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4-10.0), whilst the high TNF-alpha production-related TNF-alpha -308*2 marker was associated with both a positive BeLPT (OR 7.8, corrected p<0.0001, 95% CI 3.2-19.1) with no difference between sensitization and disease. Furthermore, the HLA-DRArg74 marker was associated with sensitization without disease (OR 3.96, p=0.005, 95% CI 1.5-10.1). The data indicate that tumour necrosis factor-, human leukocyte antigen-DR and human leukocyte antigen-DP markers play different roles in beryllium sensitization and granuloma formation in beryllium-exposed workers.

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