MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1912783355 · doi:10.1111/ajt.13376

High-Resolution HLA Typing for Sensitized Patients: Advances in Medicine and Science Require Us to Challenge Existing Paradigms

2015· letter· en· W1912783355 sur OpenAlexaff
René J. Duquesnoy, Howard M. Gebel, E. Steve Woodle, Peter Nickerson, L.A. Baxter-Lowe, Robert A. Bray, Frans H.J. Claas, David D. Eckels, John J. Friedewald, S Fuggle, John A. Gerlach, John J. Fung, Malek Kamoun, Derek Middleton, Ron Shapiro, Anat R. Tambur, Clare Taylor, Kathryn Tinckam, Adriana Zeevi

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Établissements canadiensUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHuman leukocyte antigenEpitopeScopusMedicineTypingAlleleAntibodyAntigenImmunologyComputational biologyGeneticsMEDLINEBiologyGene

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: In the April issue of AJT, an editorial by Cecka et al (1.Cecka JM Reed EF Zachary AA. HLA high-resolution typing for sensitized patients: A solution in search of a problem?.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 855-856Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar) commented on our personal viewpoint article wherein we proposed that HLA mismatch acceptability for sensitized transplant candidates should be determined at high-resolution levels (2.Duquesnoy RJ Kamoun M Baxter-Lowe LA Should HLA mismatch acceptability for sensitized transplant candidates be determined at the high-resolution rather than the antigen level?.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15 (et al): 923-930Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar). This editorial seems to express the view that HLA antigen-based testing be maintained as is despite its inherent deficiencies. We are perplexed by conflicting comments that more HLA complexity “should be pretty low on the list of priorities” while simultaneously mentioning a need for HLA-DQA and DP typing and “better” resolution of HLA-DRB3/4/5 types. Furthermore, the statement that “a whole bunch of antibodies, each recognizing a single HLA antigen or allele” places little emphasis on the concept that those antibodies are epitope specific. The editorial states that epitopes are theoretically based on “nucleotide sequence similarities between HLA alleles” and “only a few have been documented with antibodies.” During the past 2 decades, many investigators, notably Paul Terasaki’s group, have confirmed unique HLA epitopes defined by antibodies and three recent publications list 97 HLA-ABC, 50 HLA-DR, -DQ, -DP and 21 MICA antibody-verified epitopes recorded so far in the International Registry of HLA Epitopes at http://www.epregistry.com.br (3.Duquesnoy RJ Marrari M Tambur A First report on the antibody verification of HLA-DR, HLA-DQ and HLA-DP epitopes recorded in the HLA epitope registry.Hum Immunol. 2014; 75 (et al): 1097-1103Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar, 4.Duquesnoy RJ Marrari M Mulder A da Mata Sousa LCD Da Silva AS do Monte SJH. First report on the antibody verification of HLA-ABC epitopes recorded in the HLA epitope registry.Tissue Antigens. 2014; 83: 391-400Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar, 5.Duquesnoy RJ Marrari M Mostecki J da Mata Sousa LCD do Monte SJH. First report on the antibody verification of MICA epitopes recorded in the HLA epitope registry.Int J Immunogenetics. 2014; 41: 370-377Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar). The editorial expresses the opinion that “more information is almost always better than less when making clinical decisions, except when it is not directly applicable to the problem at hand.” Clearly, it does not consider the limitations of antigen-based matching as problematic and that “it is likely that one or two patients on a waiting list might benefit from knowing which HLA alleles are expressed by the donor.” How these numbers were determined is itself an interesting question. An informal survey among viewpoint article authors revealed that the number of highly sensitized patients with specific allele-reactive antibodies was >10%. Accordingly, hundreds of such patients on the US national waiting list would benefit from high-resolution typing. Most transplant programs are government funded and fairness and equity in the organ allocation process is of considerable importance even if it only impacts a small percentage of transplant candidates. We acknowledge that “it is difficult to tease out the precise impact of allele-level typing and identifying epitopes on the chance of a transplant for a sensitized patient.” This editorial has a calculation for a single allele with a 0.5% frequency and for a 10% admixture population concluding that only 1 in 2000 donors would have this allele. However, this calculation fails to acknowledge that (1.Cecka JM Reed EF Zachary AA. HLA high-resolution typing for sensitized patients: A solution in search of a problem?.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15: 855-856Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (20) Google Scholar) a given population may have multiple alleles corresponding to a given antigen, (2.Duquesnoy RJ Kamoun M Baxter-Lowe LA Should HLA mismatch acceptability for sensitized transplant candidates be determined at the high-resolution rather than the antigen level?.Am J Transplant. 2015; 15 (et al): 923-930Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (64) Google Scholar) many alleles have frequencies well above the cut-off point of 0.5%, and (3.Duquesnoy RJ Marrari M Tambur A First report on the antibody verification of HLA-DR, HLA-DQ and HLA-DP epitopes recorded in the HLA epitope registry.Hum Immunol. 2014; 75 (et al): 1097-1103Crossref PubMed Scopus (69) Google Scholar) admixtures may have multiple population and ethnic groups each with their own distinct alleles. These factors all contribute to the allelic diversities of donors and recipients especially when worldwide transplant programs are considered. Rather than clutching to old paradigms, we must apply the newest scientific concepts and the most precise technologies to define humoral barriers to successful transplantation. Let’s move forward. The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,037
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,002
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,003
Communication savante0,0070,006
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0150,029
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,005

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,346
Écart entre enseignants0,302 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations26
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAmerican Journal of TransplantationMême sujetRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207