MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407983491 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2025.1572987

Editorial: Novel applications of epitope biology to improve outcomes in transplantation

2025· editorial· en· W4407983491 sur OpenAlexaff
James H. Lan, Robert Liwski, Alberto Cardoso Martins Lima, Sandra Tafulo

Notice bibliographique

RevueFrontiers in Genetics · 2025
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEpitopeTransplantationComputational biologyBiologyComputer scienceImmunologyMedicineInternal medicineAntibody

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Advances in genome and proteome sciences have defined unique epitopes, regions of the HLA molecules defined by structure or charge, that are recognized by T-cells and antibodies and determine graft immunogenicity and antigenicity (Bjorkman et al., 1987, Zhang et al., 2005, Duquesnoy, 2014, Tambur and Claas, 2015). Clinical studies indicate that epitope mismatches are associated with graft rejection and inferior survival (Wiebe et al., 2013, Senev et al., 2020, Sapir-Pichhadze et al., 2015). While this measure does not improve matching, it may be leveraged to inform post-transplant monitoring and immunosuppression management. Other modeling studies suggest that the limited number of these epitopes, numbering only a few hundred, may permit new opportunities to optimize epitope matching during organ allocation to improve survival (Tran et al., 2021). These hypotheses offer new opportunities to improve outcomes but require rigorous evaluation, implementation of enabling technologies, and development of clear allocation policies. The focus of this Research Topic was thus to present novel approaches by which epitope biology could be used to improve the assessment of molecular compatibility and outcomes in transplantation.comprehensive review is a timely assessment of the current landscape of molecular HLA and non-HLA matching in transplantation (Mattoo et al., 2024). Key approaches used to perform HLA compatibility analysis, including characterization of the risk of indirect T cell activation (Predicted Indirectly ReCognizable HLA Epitopes, PIRCHE (Geneugelijk and Spierings, 2020)), quantification of the amount of mismatched surfaceexposed amino acids (HLA Matchmaker (Duquesnoy, 2006)), comparison of the physiochemical differences between HLA (Electrostatic Mismatch Score (Mallon et al., 2018)), and enumeration of the number of solvent-accessible amino acids (HLA Epitope MisMatch Algorithm, HLA-EMMA (Kramer et al., 2020)) were discussed and interpreted with data from relevant literature. The authors concluded with their views on the readiness (or lack of) of molecular compatibility assessment in specific clinical applications, and suggestions of areas that require further development and confirmation through clinical trials.The original research study performed by Doxiadis et al. introduced the concept of graphical HLA eplet amino acid repertoire translation called epiArt (Doxiadis et al., 2024). In the HLA community, the long-recognized patterns of cross-reactive groups have been defined by serologic reactivity (Rodey and Fuller, 1987). As our understanding and definition of the antigenic portion of the HLA molecule evolve, a new approach to visualize the relationship between eplets, small configurations of surface-exposed polymorphic amino acid residues, is required. To this end, the authors translated the amino acid sequences of antibody-confirmed eplets into an atlas of HLA class I and II antigens, followed by visualization of the pairwise allele distances by means of antigen-specific disparity graphs in differential amino acid space, showing intra-group heterogeneity of HLA class I and II alleles, as well as shared inter-group and inter-locus eplets and epitopes. This data revealed inconsistencies in the current HLA group nomenclature, indicating the need for an adjustment to how we contextualize similarities and differences between HLA alleles.The majority of computational tools used to assess molecular compatibility require the input of high-resolution HLA genotypes. When this data is not available, the validity of using imputed HLA genotypes for molecular compatibility assessment remains uncertain (Engen et al., 2021). Matern et al.'s study evaluated the effect of imputing high-resolution genotypes on molecular mismatch scores under a variety of ancestry assumptions (Matern et al., 2024). The authors analyzed a simulated patient-donor dataset and confirmed using two real-world datasets. By comparing molecular matching scores from "ground-truth" highresolution genotypes against imputed genotypes, the authors found that the use of multiple imputation and correct ancestry assumptions can greatly reduce error introduced during imputation. The authors concluded that for epitope analysis, imputation can be a valuable and low-risk strategy when accurate ancestry assumptions and the appropriate imputation strategy are applied.Cellular therapies are increasingly investigated for different applications in transplantation. Yet, the potential risk of inciting immune responses against the donor allograft remains a relative concern. In the context of allogeneic mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) therapy following kidney transplantation, Bezstarosti et al. investigated whether shared HLA epitopes and repeated amino acid mismatches between the kidney and MSC donor could trigger a donor-specific antibody (DSA) response (Bezstarosti et al., 2024). The study involved two cohorts (n=20): one that selected MSC donors to avoid repeated HLA mismatches (Leiden) and another that did not (Liège). The key findings were that selective avoidance of repeated mismatches at the split HLA antigen level did not prevent repeated mismatches at the amino acid level. Despite this, repeated amino acid mismatches did not appear to increase the risk of DSA formation following allogeneic MSC therapy. Given the low rate of DSA detected in this study (3/20), confirmatory studies with larger cohorts would be warranted to define the immunogenicity of allogeneic MSCs.In recent years, HLA-DR/DQ eplet mismatch has been associated with de novo DSA formation, rejection, and allograft loss, but Asian ethnicities have been under-represented in these study cohorts (Wiebe et al., 2019, Senev et al., 2020). Wong and colleagues performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 234 Southeast Asian kidney transplant recipients to evaluate HLA-DR/DQ eplet mismatch as a predictor of de novo DSA development (Wong et al., 2024). Single molecule eplet mismatch was quantified using HLA Matchmaker with prior eplet mismatch thresholds to categorize immune risk groups. They demonstrated that HLA-DR/DQ single molecule risk categories correlated significantly with de novo DSA-free survival. In addition, the authors identified slightly different thresholds in this predominantly cyclosporin cohort compared with previous studies that were tacrolimus-based, suggesting that the type of immunosuppressive therapy can potentially modulate the risk of eplet mismatches.In summary, the articles of this Research Topic highlight the different approaches that epitope biology could be used to support compatibility and risk assessment in transplantation. As the methods of HLA epitope assessment continue to be refined and validated across broad ethnic populations and heterogenous immunosuppressive protocols, this Research Topic will play an integral part in the implementation of precision medicine and the next frontier of immunosuppression minimization and tolerance in 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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
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: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,073

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0030,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0030,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0220,015

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 Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,304
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · 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
GenreÉditorial

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

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFrontiers in GeneticsMême sujetRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207