MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Protective Role of DNA Repair Genes Against Acute Graft Versus Host Disease in Children

2017· article· en· W3143852803 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Huezo-Diaz, Chakradhara Rao S. Uppugunduri, Mohamed Aziz Rezgui, Anuj Tyagi, Vid Mlakar, Laurence Lesne, Tiago Nava, Yves Théorêt, Yves Chalandon, Robbert Bredius, Jean‐Hugues Dalle, Peter Bader, Christina Peters, Henrique Bittencourt, Maja Krajinović, Marc Ansari

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraft-versus-host diseaseBusulfanMethotrexateMedicineCyclophosphamideImmunologyTransplantationTotal body irradiationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationTacrolimusHuman leukocyte antigenCord bloodInternal medicineGastroenterologyChemotherapyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Acute Graft versus Host Disease (aGvHD) occurs in 20-50% of pediatric patients who undergo allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Despite advances in HLA-typing methods and post-transplant immune suppression, it remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. Conditioning regimens include alkylating agents that exert their effects through their ability to directly or indirectly damage DNA. Unfortunately normal cells are also damaged due to their rapid proliferation cycles, increasing the probability of treatment-related toxicities. The most vulnerable targets among these damaged tissues are the skin, the intestinal epithelium, and the liver: In this study, our aim was to find biomarkers for aGvHD by focussing on how inter-individual differences in DNA repair mechanisms due to genetic variants in genes encoding DNA repair proteins might affect toxicity. Methods: The study included 115 children that had undergone allo-HSCT at four different centers. All patients received a Busulfan(Bu)/Cyclophosphamide(Cy) conditioning regimen. Pharmacokinetic-guided dose adjustment was performed for Bu to obtain a concentration at the steady state (Css) between 600 and 900 ng/ml. Patients received 16 doses of Bu followed by, i.v. Cy (200mg/kg total dose, 80% of patients) or CyVP16 (120mg/kg total dose). Cyclosporine was given as GvHD prophylaxis, and Methotrexate (MTX) or steroids were added to bone marrow and cord blood transplantation, respectively. ATG was given to 75% of patients. HLA matching was as follows: MRD = 37%; MUD = 21%; MMRD = 4%; MMUD = 38%. Acute GvHD was diagnosed according to the 1994 consensus conference up to day 180 post HSCT. Peripheral blood was collected and the DNA was extracted prior to transplant. Fifty-one single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within seventeen DNA repair genes were chosen for investigation. Cumulative incidence analysis of aGvHD 2-4 was performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to estimate the impact of genotype on clinical outcome in the presence of other covariates. Results: The most significant finding came from one SNP (rs10764881, G>A) located in the promoter of the MGMT gene. Patients with rs10764881 GG genotypes had a lower risk for aGvHD 2-4 incidence (Figure 1). This variant was not associated with any other treatment related toxicities nor relapses. Multivariate analysis including MGMT rs10764881 with known aGvHD risk covariates did not influence the model. In addition, from the expression analysis that we performed on 24 lymphoblastoid cell lines rs10764881 GG carriers showed 1.5 fold higher expression compared to AA or AG carriers (Figure 2). We were able to confirm experimentally with luciferase reporter constructs the impact of this variant on promoter function. Plasmids, which included the promoter sequence with rs10764881 demonstrated higher luciferase protein levels, compared to plasmids with a promoter sequence excluding rs10764881 (p= 0.01), suggesting the presence of an enhancement element close to the variant region (Figure 3). Electrophoretic mobility shift assays confirmed the presence of a Glucocorticoid Receptor Element (GRE) near to this variant. To understand whether the enhancing effects are related to corticosteroids, keratinocytes transfected with the gene reporter plasmids were stimulated with dexamethasone and luciferase expression was examined as previously. Exposing the cells with dexamethasone significantly increased protein expression of luciferase in both plasmids compared to their non-treated plasmid construct. The highest response was seen from the plasmid containing variant rs10764881 G (Figure 3). However, clinically we did not find clear differences between steroid and non-steroids recipients against rs10764881 with regards to aGvHD vulnerability (Figure 4). Conclusions: We hypothesize that the reason why variant rs10764881 GG might have a protective effect against aGvHD is due to its higher expression levels, resulting in more efficient DNA repair, in turn diminishing the immune response, reducing inflammation and hence causing less aGvHD. Thus aGvHD rs10764881 GG could potentially be a biomarker for aGvHD protection. The effects of steroids on MGMT expression needs to be addressed in future studies. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Bader: Novartis, Medac, Amgen, Riemser, Neovii: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Bittencourt: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Grant; Amgen Inc.: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicDNA Repair Mechanisms→French-language works237,207→