Supertypes are controversial because there is no agreed method for assessing the binding refinements of HLA molecules. As a result, different research groups have come to different conclusions regarding the correct grouping of HLA avenues according to their binding affinities into “supertypes”. The strongest association with HCV clearance in our study was with the HLA Class II DRB3 supertype, as defined by Greenbaum et al.,14, which exhibited a significant association with HCV clearance, even after correction for multiple tests with two separate methods. However, there are differences of opinion in the laboratory on the definition of the DRB3 supertype. For example, the MHCcluster method did not find that DRB3 supertype alleles group together according to the sequential characteristics that define their peptide condensing grooves. We also find that the high-definition HLA genotyping we conducted in this population of studies did not involve genotyping of the DRB3, DRB4, and DRB5 aisles – some of which are present in the DRB314 supertype – because these genes are not present in all individuals. These results, consistent with previous data using different tissue markers, highlighted the ethnic heterogeneity of the Mauritanian population. HLAMatchmaker is a computerized theoretical algorithm that calculates the number of differences between donors and recipients by considering each HLA as a series of amino acid configurations in antibody-accessible positions [11-13]. Although the HLAMatchmaker program requires four-digit HLA typing, to calculate the number of eplet differences, two-digit typing can be converted to four-digit typing by taking into account the catalog of common and well-documented alleles (CWD) (version 2.0.0 of the CWD catalog, available online under igdawg.org/cwd.html) and taking into account the allele frequency in a particular population or haplotype methods Four-digit HLA typing are tedious and expensive and are therefore not feasible when donating kidneys to deceased donors, and it is essential to quickly reverse HLA typing. Therefore, intermediate resolution, HLA double-digit molecular typing methods and/or low-resolution serological methods remain the standard typing technique for the allocation of deceased donor kidneys. However, the correlation, reliability and consistency of the number of eplet mismatches calculated by serological or double-digit four-digit molecular typing methods compared to high-resolution four-digit molecular typing methods remain unknown. Several limitations must be taken into account in interpreting these results. First, we find that there is no accepted method or criteria for defining HLA supertypes.

Thus, different scientific groups have grouped different avenues into different supertypes. While we have chosen an agnostic approach to the study of HLA supertypes and evaluated several different HLA-type classification systems, it is possible that none of them are perfectly correct. The differences in the methods of defining supertypes and PQ directories are reflected both in our calculation of the percentage correspondence between the supertypes studied and in our additional analysis with MHCcluster. . . .