Distribution of HLA-A, -B and -DRB1 Genes and Haplotypes in the Tujia Population Living in the Wufeng Region of Hubei Province, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distribution of HLA alleles and haplotypes varies widely between different ethnic populations and geographic areas. Before any genetic marker can be used in a disease-associated study it is therefore essential to investigate allelic frequencies and establish a genetic database. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This is the first report of HLA typing in the Tujia group using the Luminex HLA-SSO method HLA-A, -B and -DRB1 allelic distributions were determined in 124 unrelated healthy Tujia individuals, and haplotypic frequencies and linkage disequilibrium parameters were estimated using the maximum-likelihood method. In total 10 alleles were detected at the HLA-A locus, 21 alleles at the HLA-B locus and 14 alleles at the HLA-DRB1 locus. The most frequently observed alleles in the HLA-I group were HLA-A*02 (35.48%), A*11 (28.23%), A*24 (15.73%); HLA-B*40 (25.00%), B*46 (16.13%), and B*15 (15.73%). Among HLA-DRB1 alleles, high frequencies of HLA-DRB1*09 (25.81%) were observed, followed by HLA-DRB1*15 (12.9%), and DRB1*12 (10.89%). The two-locus haplotypes at the highest frequency were A*02-B*46A (8.47%), followed by A*11-B*40 (7.66%), A*02-B*40 (8.87%), A*11-B*15 (6.45%), A*02-B*15 (6.05%), B*40-DRB1*09 (9.27%) and B*46-DRB1*09 (6.45%). The most common three-locus haplotypes found in the Tujia population were A*02-B*46-DRB1*09 (4.84%) and A*02-B*40-DRB1*09 (4.03%). Fourteen two-loci haplotypes had significant linkage disequilibrium. Construction of a neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree and principal component analysis using the allelic frequencies at HLA-A was performed to compare the Tujia group and twelve other previously reported populations. The Tujia population in the Wufeng of Hubei Province had the closest genetic relationship with the central Han population, and then to the Shui, the Miao, the southern Han and the northern Han ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: These results will become a valuable source of data for tracing population migration, planning clinical organ transplantation, carrying out HLA-linked disease-associated studies and forensic identification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".