Levels of insulin autoantibodies (IAA) vary among different first degree relatives of insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus patients, suggesting genetic regulation. We previously reported elevated IAA among DR4-positive at risk relatives. In this study, 72/82 at risk relatives were IAA positive, of whom 75% (54/72) carried DR4 versus 20% (2/10) of IAA-negative relatives (P = 0.0004). However, 69% (18/26) of DR4-negative relatives were IAA positive. Since DR4 did not account for all IAA positivity, we analyzed DQA1 and DQB1 alleles. Homozygosity for DQA1 alleles deriving from the evolutionary lineage 4 (*0401, *0501, *0601) was associated with low IAA levels, while lineage 1-3 alleles (*0101, *0102, *0103, *0201, *0301) correlated with higher levels. Most (93%, 65/70) relatives with lineage 1-3 alleles were IAA positive (mean = 360 +/- 63 SEM nU/ml). Only 7/12 relatives homozygous for lineage 4 alleles were IAA-positive, with lower levels than relatives with lineage 1-3 alleles (mean = 55 +/- 15 SEM nU/ml, P < 0.0001; 7/12 vs 65/70, P = 0.004). The amino acid sequences of lineage 1-3 alleles uniquely share glutamic acid (E) and phenylalanine (F) at positions 40 and 51 (EF alleles). Lineage 4 alleles have glycine (G) and leucine (L) at those positions (GL alleles). 90% (65/72) of IAA-positive relatives had an EF allele, while only 75% (54/72) had DR4 (P = 0.01). Homozygosity for GL alleles (often DQA1 *0501 on DR3 haplotypes) correlated with little or no humoral response to insulin. Thus, HLA-DQB1 GL alleles, or other genes on haplotypes (e.g., DR3) that carry these DQA1 alleles, may confer recessive low responsiveness to insulin.
A Pugliese, T Bugawan, R Moromisato, Z L Awdeh, C A Alper, R A Jackson, H A Erlich, G S Eisenbarth
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through April 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 116 | 6 |
42 | 21 | |
Scanned page | 205 | 2 |
Citation downloads | 46 | 0 |
Totals | 409 | 29 |
Total Views | 438 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.