Journal of Clinical & Experimental Pathology
Open Access

The genetic makeup of fetal hemoglobin and the modifier genes that control the ratio of alpha to non-alpha globin chains, which is necessary to ameliorate the beta thalassemia phenotype. By doing this, the disease's severe phenotype is avoided. From severe transfusiondependent thalassemia major to non-transfusion-dependent asymptomatic instances, people with β-thalassemia have presented with a variety of clinical manifestations. It is already well established that patients with TM who had greater Fetal Hemoglobin [HbF] levels also had less severe disease phenotypes [1]. At the moment, secondary and tertiary genetic modifiers that may improve the clinical phenotype of β-thalassemia syndromes are the focus of most research. When it comes to HbF, the most prevalent Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) include genes such as: Leukemia/B-cell Lymphoma 11A (BCL11A), Krueppel-Like Factor 1 (KLF1) [2]. Examining the genes and genetic modifiers that control the balance and imbalances of the alpha-beta globin gene clusters is essential to comprehending the phenotypic variability in thalassemia.

Since BCL11A is crucial for hemoglobin switching, any deletions in BCL11A-binding motifs were thought to be linked to elevated HbF [3]. Together with the SOX6 gene, which is well known for reconfiguring the β-globin cluster by selectively modulating chromosomal loop formation, BCL11A primarily binds to the upstream locus control region (LCR), γ-globin, and the intergenic regions that exist between β-globin and γ-globin genes. This ultimately results in transcriptional silencing of the γ-globin genes. Numerous studies have shown that individuals with Sequence variations in the HSB1L-MYB or BCL11A genes are associated with less severe beta-thalassemia and greater amounts of fetal hemoglobin [4].

It is crucial to rely on or look into any element that contributes significantly to lowering the alpha/non-alpha globin chain imbalance and may have an ameliorative influence on the disease's clinical picture in order to better understand the clinical or molecular connections [5]. It has been discovered that a few of the documented mutations in the β- globin promoter region are linked to higher γ-chain expression. In essence, these are acknowledged as primary modifiers. These days, the emphasis is more on the additional genetic variations known as secondary modifiers that affect HbF levels but are not connected to the Hb genes. We refer to these modifiers as secondary modifiers; they mainly work directly to modify the illness's established pathophysiology [6,7].

Alterations in genes influencing the α/β globin chain balance, such as α and γ-globin genes, are considered secondary modifiers.

Additionally, genes involved in the expression of the γ-globin gene, such as HBS1MYB and BCL11A, are taken into consideration [8,9]. Recent years have seen notable advancements in the study of secondary genetic modifiers, which have been shown to improve the clinical manifestation of β-thalassemia. Undoubtedly, a rise in fetal hemoglobin (HbF) synthesis during the adult years may lessen the severity of the β-thalassemia phenotype, as γ-globin polypeptide chains fill the role of the functioning β-globin polypeptide chains [10-13]. Therefore, the most popular targets for contemporary therapeutic interventions are γ-globin genes and other secondary modifiers.

1. Steindel SJ, Howanitz PJ (2001) Physician satisfaction and emergency department laboratory test turnaround time. Arch Pathol Lab Med 125: 863-871.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Vollmer RT (2006) Analysis of turnaround times in pathology: An approach using failure time analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 126: 215-220.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Bhatt RD, Shrestha C, Risal P (2019) Factors Affecting Turnaround Time in the Clinical Laboratory of the Kathmandu University Hospital, Nepal. EJIFCC 30: 14.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Steindel SJ, Novis DA (1999) Using outlier events to monitor test turnaround timed. Arch Med Pathol Lab123: 607-614.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Lundberg GD (1981) Acting on significant laboratory results. JAMA 245: 1762-1763.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Crook MA (2000) Near patient testing and pathology in the new millennium. J Clin Pathol 53: 27-30.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Valenstein P (1996) Laboratory turnaround time. Am J Clin Pathol 105(6): 676-688.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Zarbo RJ, Gephardt GN, Howanitz PJ (1996)  Intralaboratory timeliness of surgical pathology reports. Results of two College of American Pathologists Q-Probes studies of biopsies and complex specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 120: 234-44.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Novis DA, Zarbo RJ, Saladino AJ (1998) Interinstitutional comparison of surgical biopsy diagnosis turnaround time: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 5384 surgical biopsies in 157 small hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 128: 951-956.

   [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. Hawkins RC (2007) Laboratory Turnaround Time. Clin Biochem Rev 28: 179.

    [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Tsai ER, Tintu AN, Demirtas D, Boucherie RJ, de Jonge R, et al (2019) A critical review of laboratory performance indicators. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 56: 458-471.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

12. Ramsay AD (1999) Errors in histopathology reporting: Detection and avoidance histopathology. 34: 481-490.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

13. Hocking GR, Nick Niteckis V, Cairns BJ, Hayman JA (1997)  Departmental audit in surgical anatomical pathology. Pathology. 29: 418-421.

    [Google Scholar] [PubMed]