| Literature DB >> 35252277 |
Spyridon Matsagos1,2, Evgenia Verigou2, Alexandra Kourakli2, Spyridon Alexis2, Spyridon Vrakas3, Constantina Argyropoulou2, Vasileios Lazaris2, Panagiota Spyropoulou1, Vasiliki Labropoulou2, Nicoletta Georgara4, Maria Lykouresi1, Marina Karakantza5, Chrysoula Alepi1, Argiris Symeonidis2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion-associated microchimerism implies the presence of allogeneic hematopoietic cells in an individual, following the transfusion of a blood product. It is a transfusion-related adverse effect/long-term consequence, which has not been well-investigated among regularly transfused patients with thalassemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We investigated 64 regularly transfused, homozygous β-thalassemic patients and 21 never-transfused healthy volunteer blood donors (controls) for the presence of microchimerism in their sera, using real-time PCR targeting circulating allogeneic, both, Human Leukocyte Antigen-DR isotype (HLA-DR) and non-HLA alleles. The investigation was longitudinally repeated in patient subsets for more than 2 years. Results were correlated with clinical and laboratory parameters, peripheral blood lymphocyte immunophenotype, blood storage time, and donor's gender to identify potential contributing factors for microchimerism generation.Entities:
Keywords: adverse effects; immunomodulation; microchimerism; thalassemia; transfusion
Year: 2022 PMID: 35252277 PMCID: PMC8888870 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2022.845490
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Figure 1Distinguishing the major and the minor chimeric population, according to the threshold value (CT).
Sequences of primers for the HLA-DR panel.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| DR1 | CTTGTGGCAGCTTAAGTTTGAATG | GGACTCCTCTTGGTTATAGATGCA |
| DR3 | TACTTCCATAACCAGGAGGAGA | TGCAGTAGTTGTCCACCCG |
| DR4 | GTTTCTGGAGCAGGTTAAAC | CCGCTGCACTGTGAAGCTCT |
| DR7 | CCTGTGGCAGGGTAAGTATA | CCCGTAGTTGTGTCTGCACAC |
| DR8 | AGTACTCTACGGGTGAGTGTT | CTGCAGTAGGTGTCCACCAG |
| DR9 | CCCGTAGTTGTGTCTGCACAC | GTTCTCTGATGCAGGATAAGTTT |
| DR10 | CGGTTGCTGGAAAGACGCG | CTGCACTGTGAAGCTCTCAC |
| DR11 | GTTTCTTGGAGTACTCTACGTC | CTGGCTGTTCCAGTACTCCT |
| DR12 | AGTACTCTACGGGTGAGTGTT | CACTGTGAAGCTCTCTCCACAG |
| DR13 | TACTTCCATAACCAGGAGGAGA | CCCGCTCGTCTTCCAGGAT |
| DR15 | CTGTGGCAGCCTAAGAGGGAGT | CCGCGCCTGCTCCAGGAT |
| DR16 | CTGTGGCAGCCTAAGAGGGAGT | AGGTGTCCACCGCGGCG |
| DQA REFERENCE | GTGCTGCAGGTGTAAACTTGTACCAG | CACGGAAGCAGCGGTAGAGTTG |
Sequences of primers for the insertion-deletion polymorphisms panel.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| S 01 | GGTACCGGGTCTCCACATGA | GGGAAAGTCACTCACCCAAGG |
| S 02 | GCTTCTCTGGTTGGAGTCACG | GCTTGCTGGCGGACCCT |
| SO-3 | CTTTTGCTTTCTGTTTCTTAAGGGC | TCAATCTTTGGGCAGGTTGAA |
| SO-4 | CTGGTGCCCACAGTTACGCT | AAGGATGCGTGACTGCTATGG |
| SO-4B | CAGTCACCCCGTGAAGTCCT | AGGATGCGTGACTGCTCCTC |
| SO-6 | TGGTATTGGCTTTAAAATACTGGG | TTTCCCCCATCTGCCTATTG |
| SO-7 | GGTATTGGCTTTAAAATACTCAACC | TGTACCCAAAACTCAGCTGCA |
| SO-7B | CTGGATGCCTCACTGATCCA | CAGCTGCAACAGTTATCAACGTT |
| SO-8 | GCTGGATGCCTCACTGATGTT | TGGGAAGGATGCATATGATCTG |
| SO-8B | GGGCACCCGTGTGAGTTTT | TCAGCTTGTCTGCTTTCTGGAA |
| SO-9 | TAGGATTCAACCCTGGAAGC | CCAGCATGCACCTGACTAACA |
| SO-11 | GGACTGAGGCTCCCACCTTT | GCATGGACTGTGGTCTGCAA |
| GAPDH REFERENCE | GGTACCGGGTCTCCACATGA | GGGAAAGTCACTCACCCAAGG |
Flow cytometry analysis panel used for the detection of various lymphocyte subpopulations.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| FITC | CD3 | CD127 | CD45RO |
| PE | CD16+CD56 | CD25 | CD14 |
| ECD | CD8 | HLA DR | CD8 |
| PC5 | CD4 | CD4 | CD20 |
| PC7 | CD45 | CD3 | CD45 |
Figure 2Frequency and severity of microchimerism (number of chimeric alleles detected) according to the subject group tested. Only patients with TDT exhibited ≥3 positive chimeric alleles, and there was a big difference in the proportion of subjects exhibiting 1 or 2 chimeric alleles, between TDT patients and controls. TDT, transfusion-dependent β-thalassemia.
Figure 3Descriptive diagram for allele detection over time.
Patient demographics and main clinical and laboratory characteristics associated with TA-MC status.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Male (32) | 22 (68.7%) | 1.15 ± 0.97 |
|
| Female (32) | 30 (93.7%) | 2.46 ± 1.69 | |
|
| |||
| Median: 33.6 (31) | 24 (77.4 %) | 1.35 ± 1.00 |
|
| Median: 52.5 (33) | 28 (84.8%) | 2.24 ± 1.79 | |
|
| |||
| High (38) | 32 (84.2%) | 1.89 ± 1.47 |
|
| Intermediate (16) | 14 (87.5%) | 2.19 ± 1.78 | |
| Low (10) | 6 (60%) | 0.90 ± 0.83 | |
|
| |||
| No (28) | 22 (78.5%) | 1.39 ± 1.01 | 0.054 |
| Yes (36) | 30 (83.3%) | 2.13 ± 1.76 | |
|
| |||
| No (60) | 48 (80%) | 1.71 ± 1.46 | 0.052 |
| Yes (4) | 4 (100%) | 3.25 ± 1.78 | |
|
| |||
| No (24) | 22 (91.6%) | 2.41 ± 1.70 | 0.712 |
| Yes (8) | 8 (100%) | 2.62 ± 1.65 | |
|
| |||
| No (9) | 9 (100%) | 1.77 ± 1.22 | 0.906 |
| Yes (55) | 43 (78.1%) | 1.81 ± 1.57 | |
|
| |||
| No (43) | 37 (86%) | 1.81 ± 1.35 | 0.921 |
| Yes (21) | 15 (71.4%) | 1.80 ± 1.84 | |
|
| |||
| No (41) | 36 (87.8%) | 2.02 ± 1.45 | 0.098 |
| Yes (23) | 16 (69.5%) | 1.43 ± 1.58 | |
|
| |||
| No (37) | 30 (81%) | 1.86 ± 1.59 | 0.734 |
| Yes (27) | 22 (81.4%) | 1.74 ± 1.42 | |
|
| |||
| (1,000–2,321) | 25 (83.3%) | 1.80 ± 1.4 | 0.982 |
| (2,419–7,200) | 22 (81.4%) | 1.79 ± 1.7 | |
|
| |||
| (533–1,490) | 27 (77.1%) | 1.94 ± 1.68 | 0.437 |
| (1,500–2,744) | 24 (85.7%) | 1.64 ± 1.31 | |
|
| |||
| (85–4,667) | 49 (85.9%) | 1.94 ± 1.53 |
|
| (5,049–7,641) | 3 (42.8%) | 0.71 ± 0.88 | |
Female patients of more advanced age, more heavily transfused with higher serum ferritin levels were associated with stronger and longer-standing microchimerism. TA-MC, transfusion-associated microchimerism.
Data was available for 59 patients.
Data was available for 63 patients. Statistically significant results are depicted in bold.
Figure 4The diagram shows the range of storage days of the 1,241 blood units that had been transfused on 11 non-MC (blue bars) and 1,173 blood units on 14 MC patients (orange bars). MC, microchimerism.
Results for the major lymphocyte subpopulations, examined across patients' groups, defined by the number of chimeric alleles detected by PCR.
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CD20+ (B cells) | 51 | −0.033 | 0.817 | 0.955 | 0.998 |
| CD3+ (total T-cells) | 51 | −0.034 | 0.811 | 0.882 | 0.649 |
| CD3– (non T-cells) | 51 | 0.034 | 0.811 | 0.882 | 0.445 |
| CD8+CD3+ (CD8 T-cells) | 51 | −0.227 | 0.109 | 0.516 | 0.365 |
| CD4+CD3+ (CD4 T-cells) | 51 | 0.142 | 0.319 | 0.374 | 0.081 |
| CD4+CD25brCD127– (T-reg) | 51 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| HLADRdim | 45 | −0.088 | 0.567 | 0.860 | 0.200 |
| HLADRbright | 45 | −0.010 | 0.947 | 0.417 | 0.445 |
| CD3+CD25bright | 45 |
|
| 0.620 | 0.111 |
| CD3+CD25dim | 45 | 0.244 | 0.106 | 0.468 | 0.342 |
| CD3+HLADRbright | 45 | 0.201 | 0.185 | 0.117 | 0.279 |
| CD3+HLADRdim | 51 | 0.116 | 0.417 | 0.616 | 0.573 |
|
| |||||
| CD45RO+ (memory cells) | 51 | 0.195 | 0.170 | 0.636 | 0.373 |
| CD4+CD45RO+ (CD4 memory) | 51 | 0.158 | 0.267 | 0.371 | 0.573 |
| CD8+CD45RO+ (CD8 memory) | 51 | 0.223 | 0.115 | 0.270 | 0.432 |
|
| |||||
| CD3+CD16+CD56+ (NK/T) | 51 |
|
|
|
|
| CD3brightCD16+CD56+ (NK/Tγδ) | 51 | 0.131 | 0.358 | 0.291 | 0.487 |
| CD3–CD16dimCD56dim (CD16dimCD56dim NK) | 51 |
|
|
|
|
| CD3–CD16brightCD56bright (CD16brightCD56bright NK) | 51 | 0.184 | 0.196 | 0.798 | 0.903 |
The table summarizes the Spearman correlation (either positive or negative) of each population assessed with the number of chimeric alleles detected and the differences in medians and distributions of the populations across the same patient groups (median test, Kruskal–Wallis test). Statistically significant results are depicted in bold. Mature NK cells and NK/T cells were significantly reduced, whereas regulatory T-cells were significantly increased, and these populations, and as activated T-cells expressing CD25.
Figure 5Fluctuation of mature NK-cell frequencies (as defined by the CD16dimCD56dim co-expression profile) by the number of chimeric alleles detected in the thalassemic patient population. A clear and significant inverse association can be seen.
Figure 6Identification and quantification of NK and NKT in patients with a different allelic burden. (A) Patient with no chimeric alleles detected. (B) Patient with three chimeric alleles detected (splenectomized) (green: CD3+ non-NK, gray: CD3– non-NK, blue: NK CD56CD16br, red: CD8+NKT, turquoise: CD3br T/NK yellow: NK CD56CD16dim).
Figure 7Identification and quantification of T-reg in patients with a different allelic burden. (A) Patient with no chimeric alleles detected. (B) Patient with five chimeric alleles detected (red: T-reg [CD4+CD25hiCD127–], blue: CD4+CD25–, green: CD4+CD25dimCD127–, yellow: CD4+CD25dimCD127+).
Figure 8Percentage of Regulatory T-cells across different patient groups defined by the number of chimeric alleles. A clear ascending trend, in parallel with the number of detected chimeric alleles was found (grand median = 0.69, median test significance p = 0.012).