| Literature DB >> 23119165 |
Neema P Mayor1, Bronwen E Shaw, J Alejandro Madrigal, Steven G E Marsh.
Abstract
Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is a valuable tool in the treatment of many haematological disorders. Advances in understanding HLA matching have improved prognoses. However, many recipients of well-matched HSCT develop posttransplant complications, and survival is far from absolute. The pursuit of novel genetic factors that may impact on HSCT outcome has resulted in the publication of many articles on a multitude of genes. Three NOD2 polymorphisms, identified as disease-associated variants in Crohn's disease, have recently been suggested as important candidate gene markers in the outcome of HSCT. It was originally postulated that as the clinical manifestation of inflammatory responses characteristic of several post-transplant complications was of notable similarity to those seen in Crohn's disease, it was possible that they shared a common cause. Since the publication of this first paper, numerous studies have attempted to replicate the results in different transplant settings. The data has varied considerably between studies, and as yet no consensus on the impact of NOD2 SNPs on HSCT outcome has been achieved. Here, we will review the existing literature, summarise current theories as to why the data differs, and suggest possible mechanisms by which the SNPs affect HSCT outcome.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23119165 PMCID: PMC3483648 DOI: 10.1155/2012/180391
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bone Marrow Res ISSN: 2090-3006
Figure 1The structure of the NOD2 gene and NOD2 protein. The numbering in the black boxes indicates the exon numbers. The numbering alongside the protein diagram indicates the amino acid positioning. SNPs 8, 12, and 13 are located within exons 4, 8 and 11 respectively, and encode either amino acid substitutions (SNPs 8 and 12) or a frame-shift causing early truncation of the protein (SNP 13).
A comparison of the results published on NOD2 genotype and haematopoietic stem cell transplant outcome.
| Study | Donor sourcea | Recipient diagnosisb | T-cell depletion | Effect of |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes— | Increased severe aGvHD (gr. III-IV) in SNP-positive donors and pairs | |||
| Holler et al. 2004 [ | Mixed | Mixed | 43% WT pairs | Increased severe GI aGvHD with SNP-positive pairs; |
| 48% SNP pairs | Increased transplant-related mortality in SNP-positive pairs | |||
|
| ||||
| Reduced overall survival with SNP-positive recipients and when both recipient and donor are SNP positive | ||||
| Holler et al. 2006 [ | RD | Mixed | — | Increased transplant-related mortality with increasing numbers of SNPs |
| Increased severe (gr. III-IV) and severe GI aGvHD with increasing numbers of SNPs | ||||
|
| ||||
| Lower overall and severe aGvHD (gr. III-IV) with SNP-positive donors | ||||
| Elmaagacli et al. 2006 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes ~30% | Increased severe aGvHD (gr. III-IV) when both recipient and donor are SNP positive |
| Reduced disease relapse when both recipient and donor are SNP-positive | ||||
|
| ||||
| Granell et al. 2006 [ | RD | Mixed | Yes, 100% | Reduced disease-free survival in SNP positive recipients. |
|
| ||||
| Yes— | Reduced overall survival in SNP-positive recipients and pairs | |||
| Mayor et al. 2007 [ | UD | Acute | 82% WT pairs | Increased disease relapse in SNP-positive recipients and pairs |
| 85% SNP pairs | Reduced disease-free survival in SNP-positive recipients and pairs | |||
|
| ||||
| Yes, | Reduced overall survival in SNP-positive pairs (sibling HSCT) and SNP 13 positive donors (UD) | |||
| Holler et al. 2008 [ | Mixed | Mixed | 78% cohort 1, | Increased severe aGvHD (gr III-IV) with SNP-positive pairs (sibling and UD) and SNP 13 positive donors (UD) |
| 22% cohort 2 | Increased transplant-related mortality with SNP-positive pairs (sibling HSCT) and SNP 13 positive donors (UD) | |||
|
| ||||
|
van der Velden et al. 2009 [ | RD | Mixed | Yes, 100% | Increased severe aGvHD (gr. III-IV) in SNP-positive pairs |
| Increased transplant-related mortality in SNP-positive pairs | ||||
|
| ||||
|
Wermke et al. 2010 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes, | Increased disease relapse in SNP-positive recipients (trend at MV) |
| Trend for less GI aGvHD in SNP-positive recipients (UV only) | ||||
|
| ||||
| Elmaagacli et al. 2011 [ | RD | AML | None | Increase in overall (gr. I–IV) and severe (gr. III-IV) aGvHD in SNP-positive recipients |
|
| ||||
|
Kreyenberg et al. 2011 [ | Unknown | Mixed | — | Reduced overall survival in SNP 13 positive recipients |
| Increased transplant-related mortality in SNP 13 positive recipients | ||||
|
| ||||
| Ditschkowski et al. 2007 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes, 30% | No significant effects on BO or BOOP |
|
| ||||
| Hildebrandt et al. 2008 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes, 37% | BO increased in SNP-positive recipients |
|
| ||||
| Sairafi et al. 2008 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes, 61% | No significant effects |
|
| ||||
| Gruhn et al. 2009 [ | Mixed | Mixed | None | No significant effects |
|
| ||||
| Nguyen et al. 2010 [ | UD | Mixed | None | No significant effects |
|
| ||||
| van der Straaten et al. 2011 [ | Mixed | Mixed | Yes, | No significant effects |
aMixed as a donor source denotes both related (RD) and unrelated donors (UD) were used.
bMixed as a recipient diagnosis indicates that the included recipients underwent HSCT for any one of a number of diseases.