Genome-wide association study reveals two novel genetic loci associated with chronic lung allograft dysfunction

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Chronic lung allograft dysfunction (CLAD) leads to declining respiratory function and high mortality, representing the main barrier to long-term survival in lung transplantation (LT). We performed the first genome-wide association study (GWAS) investigating donor’s and recipient’s genetic factors associated with CLAD. Method We genotyped 392 donor-recipient pairs from the multicentric Cohort in Lung Transplantation. We tested 4.5 million SNPs for association with CLAD using multivariable logistic regression models corrected for age, sex, initial disease and genetic ancestry. Three levels of explanatory variables were separately considered to conduct GWAS: donors-only, recipients-only, and donor-recipient mismatches. We also ran HLA-centric analyses using the same models. Results Our analysis confirmed the deleterious impact of HLA allelic and epitopic mismatches on CLAD risk, mostly driven by class I HLA (p=0.004). No significant associations with CLAD were found for donors’ genotypes or donor-recipient non-HLA mismatches. We highlighted two independent recipient’s loci associated with CLAD, including one protective signal (0.39 in CLAD vs 0.66 in non-CLAD recipients, p-value=5.05×10 -7 , q-value=0.017, OR=0.35) encompassing the PLXDC2 gene, and one risk signal (0.66 in CLAD vs 0.38 in non-CLAD recipients, p-value=9.86×10 -7 , q-value=0.017, OR=2.83) encompassing the ZNF518A/BLNK genes. These non-coding SNPs are putative regulatory variants of gene expression. Importantly, our single-cell RNA-sequencing showed a down-regulation of PLXDC2 in monocytes and lung epithelium in CLAD vs healthy controls (p≤2.0×10 -16 ). Conclusion This first LT GWAS revealed two candidate loci from the recipient’s genome, both biologically relevant for CLAD pathogenesis. Our study calls for larger LT genomic initiatives to increase power for signal discovery.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.