4.6 Article

Allelic polymorphism synergizes with variable gene content to individualize human KIR genotype

期刊

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
卷 168, 期 5, 页码 2307-2315

出版社

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.168.5.2307

关键词

-

资金

  1. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P01CA030206] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [R01AI022039, P01AI045865] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NCI NIH HHS [P01 CA 30206] Funding Source: Medline
  4. NIAID NIH HHS [AI 45865, AI 07290, AI 22039] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Killer Ig-like receptor (KIR) genes are a multigene family on human chromosome 19. KIR genes occur in various combinations on different haplotypes. Additionally, KIR genes are polymorphic. To examine how allelic polymorphism diversifies KIR haplotypes with similar or identical combinations of KIR genes, we devised methods for discriminating alleles of KIR2DL1, -2DL3, -3DL1, and -3DL2. These methods were applied to 143 individuals from 34 families to define 98 independent KIR haplotypes at the allele level. Three novel 3DL2 alleles and a chimeric 3DL1/3DL2 sequence were also identified. Among the A group haplotypes were 22 different combinations of 2DL1, 2DL3, 3DL1, and 3DL2 alleles. Among the B group haplotypes that were unambiguously determined were 15 distinct haplotypes involving 9 different combinations of KIR genes. A and B haplotypes both exhibit strong linkage disequilibrium (LD) between 2DL1 and 2DL3 alleles, and between 3DL1 and 3DL2 alleles. In contrast, there was little LD between the 2DL1/2DL3 and 3DL1/3DL2 pairs that define the two halves of the KIR gene complex. The synergistic combination of allelic polymorphism and variable gene content individualize KIR genotype to an extent where unrelated individuals almost always have different KIR types. This level of diversity likely reflects strong pressure from pathogens on the human NK cell response. The Journal of Immunology, 2002, 168: 2307-2315.

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