Table 2.
Comparison of the genotypic and allelic representation of CCR5 5’UTR-2SNP-hap (−2459G>A and −2135C>T) and CCR5 3’UTR +2919T>G SNP in controllers, controller subgroups and progressors
| Controllers vs. Progressors | ECs vs. Progressors | VCs vs. Progressors | HVL LTNPs vs. Progressors | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | CI | P | OR | CI | P | OR | CI | P | OR | CI | P | |
| 5’UTR-2SNP-hap | ||||||||||||
| 5’UTR-2SNP-hap – allelic | 1.72 | 1.07–2.77 | 0.03 | 1.94 | 0.96–3.94 | 0.087 | 1.67 | 0.93–2.98 | 0.11 | 1.49 | 0.59–3.76 | 0.49 |
| 5’UTR-2SNP-hap – heterozygosity (WT/Mt) | 3.08 | 1.46–6.49 | 0.003 (0.048*) | 3.67 | 1.28–10.47 | 0.017 | 3.38 | 1.38–8.32 | 0.012 | 1.63 | 0.41–6.47 | 0.71 |
| 5’UTR-2SNP-hap – dominant mode | 2.86 | 1.41–5.79 | 0.003 (0.048*) | 3.39 | 1.28–9.00 | 0.019 | 2.95 | 1.28–6.79 | 0.017 | 1.78 | 0.47–6.78 | 0.46 |
| 3’UTR +2919 SNP | ||||||||||||
| +2919T>G SNP – allelic | 1.9 | 1.18–3.09 | 0.01 | 1.89 | 0.93–3.83 | 0.08 | 1.83 | 1.02–3.31 | 0.06 | 2.21 | 0.82–5.95 | 0.17 |
| +2919T>G SNP – heterozygosity (WT/Mt) | 3.33 | 1.59–7.00 | 0.002 (0.032*) | 2.75 | 1.00–7.60 | 0.06 | 3.7 | 1.5–8.92 | 0.004 | 3.75 | 0.95–14.88 | 0.07 |
| +2919T>G SNP – dominant mode | 3.2 | 1.58–6.48 | 0.001 (0.016*) | 2.85 | 1.08–7.56 | 0.04 | 3.28 | 1.43–7.57 | 0.006 | 3.73 | 1.02–13.70 | 0.07 |
*
p value after Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Other comparisons did not maintain significance after Bonferroni correction
Shaded blocks indicate significant comparisons
ECs: elite controllers, VCs: viraemic controllers, HVL LTNPs: high vi ral load long term non-progressors OR: odds ratio, CI: 95% confidence i nterval