Article | Published:

High-resolution HLA phased haplotype frequencies to predict the success of unrelated donor searches and clinical outcome following hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

HLA matching is a critical factor for successful allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. For unrelated donor searches, matching is usually based on high-resolution typing at five HLA loci, looking for a 10/10 match. Some studies have proposed that further matching at the haplotype level could be beneficial for clinical outcome. In this study, we determined the phased haplotypes of 291 patients using family members and segregation analysis. The sum of ranks of the haplotypes carried by patients was used as a surrogate predictor of a successful unrelated donor search. The putative impact of haplotypes was then analyzed in a cohort of 211 recipients transplanted with 10/10 matched unrelated donors. A logistic regression analysis showed a highly significant effect of the haplotypes in the outcome of a search, but we did not find any significant effect on overall survival, graft versus host disease or relapse/progression following HSCT. This study provides useful data for the optimization of unrelated bone marrow donor searches, but does not confirm previous reports that matching at the haplotype level has a clinical impact following HSCT. Due to the extreme polymorphism of HLA genes, further studies are warranted to better understand the many factors at play.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Ciurea SO, Bayraktar UD. “No donor”? Consider a haploidentical transplant. Blood Rev. 2015;29:63–70.

  2. 2.

    McCurdy SR, Fuchs EJ. Selecting the best haploidentical donor. Semin Hematol. 2016;53:246–51.

  3. 3.

    Petersdorf EW. Mismatched unrelated donor transplantation. Semin Hematol. 2016;53:230–6.

  4. 4.

    Petersdorf EW. Optimal HLA matching in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Curr Opin Immunol. 2008;20:588–93.

  5. 5.

    Tiercy JM. How to select the best available related or unrelated donor of hematopoietic stem cells? Haematologica. 2016;101:680–7.

  6. 6.

    Bettens F, Passweg J, Schanz U, Chalandon Y, Heim D, Gungor T, et al. Impact of HLA-DPB1 haplotypes on outcome of 10/10 matched unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donor transplants depends on MHC-linked microsatellite polymorphisms. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2012;18:608–16.

  7. 7.

    Dickinson AM. Non-HLA genetics and predicting outcome in HSCT. Int J Immunogenet. 2008;35:375–80.

  8. 8.

    Ishikawa Y, Kashiwase K, Akaza T, Morishima Y, Inoko H, Sasazuki T, et al. Polymorphisms in TNFA and TNFR2 affect outcome of unrelated bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;29:569–75.

  9. 9.

    Keen LJ, DeFor TE, Bidwell JL, Davies SM, Bradley BA, Hows JM. Interleukin-10 and tumor necrosis factor alpha region haplotypes predict transplant-related mortality after unrelated donor stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2004;103:3599–602.

  10. 10.

    Mullally A, Ritz J. Beyond HLA: the significance of genomic variation for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2007;109:1355–62.

  11. 11.

    Parmar S, Del Lima M, Zou Y, Patah PA, Liu P, Cano P, et al. Donor-recipient mismatches in MHC class I chain-related gene A in unrelated donor transplantation lead to increased incidence of acute graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2009;114:2884–7.

  12. 12.

    Petersdorf EW, Malkki M, Horowitz MM, Spellman SR, Haagenson MD, Wang T. Mapping MHC haplotype effects in unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2013;121:1896–905.

  13. 13.

    Joris MM, Lankester AC, von dem Borne PA, Kuball J, Bierings M, Cornelissen JJ, et al. The impact of frequent HLA haplotypes in high linkage disequilibrium on donor search and clinical outcome after unrelated haematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:483–90.

  14. 14.

    Morishima S, Ogawa S, Matsubara A, Kawase T, Nannya Y, Kashiwase K, et al. Impact of highly conserved HLA haplotype on acute graft-versus-host disease. Blood. 2010;115:4664–70.

  15. 15.

    Petersdorf EW, Malkki M, Gooley TA, Martin PJ, Guo Z. MHC haplotype matching for unrelated hematopoietic cell transplantation. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e8.

  16. 16.

    Tay GK, Witt CS, Christiansen FT, Charron D, Baker D, Herrmann R, et al. Matching for MHC haplotypes results in improved survival following unrelated bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;15:381–5.

  17. 17.

    Bugawan TL, Klitz W, Blair A, Erlich HA. High-resolution HLA class I typing in the CEPH families: analysis of linkage disequilibrium among HLA loci. Tissue Antigens. 2000;56:392–404.

  18. 18.

    Cullen M, Noble J, Erlich H, Thorpe K, Beck S, Klitz W, et al. Characterization of recombination in the HLA class II region. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60:397–407.

  19. 19.

    Kauppi L, Stumpf MP, Jeffreys AJ. Localized breakdown in linkage disequilibrium does not always predict sperm crossover hot spots in the human MHC class II region. Genomics. 2005;86:13–24.

  20. 20.

    Louzoun Y, Alter I, Gragert L, Albrecht M, Maiers M. Modeling coverage gaps in haplotype frequencies via Bayesian inference to improve stem cell donor selection. Immunogenetics. 2018;70:279–92.

  21. 21.

    Nunes JM, Buhler S, Roessli D, Sanchez-Mazas A, collaboration H-n. The HLA-net GENE[RATE] pipeline for effective HLA data analysis and its application to 145 population samples from Europe and neighbouring areas. Tissue Antigens. 2014;83:307–23.

  22. 22.

    Riccio ME, Buhler S, Nunes JM, Vangenot C, Cuenod M, Currat M, et al. 16(th) IHIW: analysis of HLA population data, with updated results for 1996 to 2012 workshop data (AHPD project report). Int J Immunogenet. 2013;40:21–30.

  23. 23.

    Eberhard HP, Feldmann U, Bochtler W, Baier D, Rutt C, Schmidt AH, et al. Estimating unbiased haplotype frequencies from stem cell donor samples typed at heterogeneous resolutions: a practical study based on over 1 million German donors. Tissue Antigens. 2010;76:352–61.

  24. 24.

    Ikeda N, Kojima H, Nishikawa M, Hayashi K, Futagami T, Tsujino T, et al. Determination of HLA-A, -C, -B, -DRB1 allele and haplotype frequency in Japanese population based on family study. Tissue Antigens. 2015;85:252–9.

  25. 25.

    Pedron B, Yakouben K, Adjaoud D, Auvrignon A, Landman J, Guerin V, et al. Listing of common HLA alleles and haplotypes based on the study of 356 families residing in the Paris, France, area: implications for unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donor selection. Hum Immunol. 2005;66:721–31.

  26. 26.

    Testi M, Battarra M, Lucarelli G, Isgro A, Morrone A, Akinyanju O, et al. HLA-A-B-C-DRB1-DQB1 phased haplotypes in 124 Nigerian families indicate extreme HLA diversity and low linkage disequilibrium in Central-West Africa. Tissue Antigens. 2015;86:285–92.

  27. 27.

    Pedron B, Duval M, Elbou OM, Moskwa M, Jambou M, Vilmer E, et al. Common genomic HLA haplotypes contributing to successful donor search in unrelated hematopoietic transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31:423–7.

  28. 28.

    Pedron B, Guerin-El Khourouj V, Dalle JH, Ouachee-Chardin M, Yakouben K, Corroyez F, et al. Contribution of HLA-A/B/C/DRB1/DQB1 common haplotypes to donor search outcome in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2011;17:1612–8.

  29. 29.

    Testi M, Andreani M, Locatelli F, Arcese W, Troiano M, Battarra M, et al. Influence of the HLA characteristics of Italian patients on donor search outcome in unrelated hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Tissue Antigens. 2014;84:198–205.

  30. 30.

    Buhler S, Nunes JM, Nicoloso G, Tiercy JM, Sanchez-Mazas A. The heterogeneous HLA genetic makeup of the Swiss population. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e41400.

  31. 31.

    Romon I, Montes C, Ligeiro D, Trindade H, Sanchez-Mazas A, Nunes JM, et al. Mapping the HLA diversity of the Iberian Peninsula. Hum Immunol. 2016;77:832–40.

  32. 32.

    Sanchez-Mazas A, Buhler S, Nunes JM. A new HLA map of Europe: regional genetic variation and its implication for peopling history, disease-association studies and tissue transplantation. Hum Hered. 2013;76:162–77.

  33. 33.

    Nunes JM. Using uniformat and gene[rate] to analyze data with ambiguities in population genetics. Evol Bioinform Online. 2016;11(Suppl 2):19–26.

  34. 34.

    Maiers M, Gragert L, Klitz W. High-resolution HLA alleles and haplotypes in the United States population. Hum Immunol. 2007;68:779–88.

  35. 35.

    Eberhard HP, Madbouly AS, Gourraud PA, Balere ML, Feldmann U, Gragert L, et al. Comparative validation of computer programs for haplotype frequency estimation from donor registry data. Tissue Antigens. 2013;82:93–105.

  36. 36.

    Sanchez-Mazas A, Vidan-Jeras B, Nunes JM, Fischer G, Little AM, Bekmane U, et al. Strategies to work with HLA data in human populations for histocompatibility, clinical transplantation, epidemiology and population genetics: HLA-NET methodological recommendations. Int J Immunogenet. 2012;39:459–72. quiz 73-6

  37. 37.

    Olson JA, Gibbens Y, Tram K, Kempenich J, Novakovich J, Buck K, et al. Identification of a 10/10 matched donor for patients with an uncommon haplotype is unlikely. HLA. 2017;89:77–81.

  38. 38.

    Tiercy JM. Unrelated hematopoietic stem cell donor matching probability and search algorithm. Bone Marrow Res. 2012;2012:695018.

  39. 39.

    Tiercy JM, Nicoloso G, Passweg J, Schanz U, Seger R, Chalandon Y, et al. The probability of identifying a 10/10 HLA allele-matched unrelated donor is highly predictable. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;40:515–22.

  40. 40.

    Bashey A, Zhang X, Sizemore CA, Manion K, Brown S, Holland HK, et al. T-cell-replete HLA-haploidentical hematopoietic transplantation for hematologic malignancies using post-transplantation cyclophosphamide results in outcomes equivalent to those of contemporaneous HLA-matched related and unrelated donor transplantation. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1310–6.

  41. 41.

    Luznik L, O’Donnell PV, Symons HJ, Chen AR, Leffell MS, Zahurak M, et al. HLA-haploidentical bone marrow transplantation for hematologic malignancies using nonmyeloablative conditioning and high-dose, posttransplantation cyclophosphamide. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2008;14:641–50.

  42. 42.

    Petersdorf EW. Which factors influence the development of GVHD in HLA-matched or mismatched transplants? Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2017;30:333–5.

  43. 43.

    Fernandez-Vina MA, Klein JP, Haagenson M, Spellman SR, Anasetti C, Noreen H, et al. Multiple mismatches at the low expression HLA loci DP, DQ, and DRB3/4/5 associate with adverse outcomes in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2013;121:4603–10.

  44. 44.

    Fleischhauer K, Shaw BE. HLA-DP in unrelated hematopoietic cell transplantation revisited: challenges and opportunities. Blood. 2017;130:1089–96.

  45. 45.

    Shaw BE, Gooley TA, Malkki M, Madrigal JA, Begovich AB, Horowitz MM, et al. The importance of HLA-DPB1 in unrelated donor hematopoietic cell transplantation. Blood. 2007;110:4560–6.

  46. 46.

    Nowak J, Nestorowicz K, Graczyk-Pol E, Mika-Witkowska R, Rogatko-Koros M, Jaskula E, et al. HLA-inferred extended haplotype disparity level is more relevant than the level of HLA mismatch alone for the patients survival and GvHD in T cell-replate hematopoietic stem cell transplantation from unrelated donor. Hum Immunol. 2018;79:403–12.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant #310030_173237/1), the Academic Society of the University of Geneva, the Ernest Boninchi Foundation (grant 2016 to AS-M), IRGHET (International Research Group on unrelated Hematopoietic stem cell Transplantation), the Dr Henri Dubois-Ferrière Dinu Lippatti foundation and the Philantropy Settlement.

Author information

Correspondence to Stéphane Buhler.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Table S1

Table S2

Table S3

Table S4

Table S5

Supplementary Figures legends

Figure S1

Figure S2

Figure S3

Figure S4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark
Fig. 1
Fig. 2