RESUMO
The peopling of the Canary Islands has been widely debated. The mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome data support the idea of a Berber genetic origin coming from the North of Africa (maternal) and a later contribution of the Spanish invaders (paternal). The frequencies of the HLA class II alleles from the Tenerife Island (another Canary Island) have previously been published, postulating a Berber and Atlantic/Iberian contributions to the current population. The HLA class I and class II allele frequencies, haplotype frequencies and phylogenetic comparisons were performed in 215 unrelated individuals from Gran Canaria Island (belonging to the kidney transplant waiting list), with at least three generations of ancestors from Canary Islands, in order to study the different ethnical HLA contributions to the genetic background of the Canary Islanders. Results showed the presence of a compound HLA haplotype of putative Phoenician-Berber origin, A*33:01-C*08:02-B*14:02-DRB1*03:01-DQB1*02:01, likely coming from the combination of haplotypes A*30:02-C*05:01-B*18:01-DRB1*03:01-DQB1*02:01 and A*33:01-C*08:02-B*14:02-DRB1*01:02-DQB1*05:01 of North African (probably Berber) and West Asian Mediterranean (probably Phoenician) origins, respectively. The latter haplotypes and others from the same origin (Berber/Phoenician) are also present in the population studied. Besides, other contributions from the North of Europe, North England-Iberian (Atlantic contribution), and Western Europe/Mediterraneans (Spanish colonization) are also discussed. These data conclude that the current genetic background of the Canary Islands inhabitants has been generated over the years by different ways with an original Phoenician-Berber substrate and several genetic contributions generated in different invasions.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Complete prevention of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease continues to be an unresolved problem in renal transplantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2005 to May 2006, we implemented a protocol for early detection and preemptive treatment of CMV infection as detected by antigenemia or polymerase chain reaction determined every 2 weeks during the first 3 months posttransplant and monthly thereafter. Prophylaxis was given to all CMV-negative patients who received CMV-positive kidneys and to those who received polyclonal or monoclonal antibody induction therapy. RESULTS: Among 100 transplants, 15 subjects received prophylaxis due to poly- or monoclonal antibody induction and/or negative recipient serology using a mean valgancyclovir dose of 485 +/- 276 mg/d for an average duration of 129 days. After completion of the prophylaxis four patients (26.6%) required preemptive therapy for asymptomatic virus reactivation; the mean dose of drug in these patients had been 450 +/- 275.56 mg, with a treatment time that was significantly shorter than those not suffering reactivation (91.75 vs 143.45 days). In addition, preemptive therapy was given for virus reactivation in seven patients, for illness with mild viral syndrome in two, with moderate illness and positive pretransplantation serology in one. The average treatment time was 79 days and the mean dose was 375 mg. CONCLUSION: In those not at risk, CMV infections occurred among 11.7% of patients in our early detection program. Prophylaxis for at-risk patients should continue for more than 3 months to prevent reactivation.
