BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis

Luu Hoang, Kim Ngan; Evans, Shelley; Willis, Thomas W.; Davies, Kate; Kockelbergh, Hannah; Silcock, Lee; Piechocki, Kim; Fowler, Anna; Soilleux, Elizabeth J.

doi:10.3390/ijms262110697

Open AccessArticle

BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis

by

Kim Ngan Luu Hoang

¹

,

Shelley Evans

¹

,

Thomas W. Willis

^2,3

,

Kate Davies

^1,4

,

Hannah Kockelbergh

^5,6,

Lee Silcock

⁷,

Kim Piechocki

⁷,

Anna Fowler

⁵

and

Elizabeth J. Soilleux

^1,*

¹

Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK

²

Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, UK

³

Center for Immunity and Immunotherapies, Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Seattle, WA 98105, USA

⁴

Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK

⁵

Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZX, UK

⁶

The Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK

⁷

Nonacus Ltd., Quinton Business Park, Birmingham B32 1AF, UK

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26(21), 10697; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110697

Submission received: 20 September 2025 / Revised: 18 October 2025 / Accepted: 29 October 2025 / Published: 3 November 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Mechanisms, Emerging Biomarkers, Novel Therapies and Personalized Treatment in Celiac Disease (CD))

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

Coeliac disease (CeD) is a gastrointestinal enteropathy triggered by the consumption of gluten in predisposed individuals. A recent study showed that individuals were at more than 10% risk of having CeD if a first-degree relative also had the disease. However, only around 50% of CeD genetic heritability is attributable to specific loci, with the majority of this heritable risk attributed to the HLA loci, while the remaining 50% of disease risk is currently unidentified. We investigated the butyrophilin family of immunomodulators as novel CeD risk loci. We sequenced the butyrophilin loci of 48 CeD and 46 control patients and carried out gene-based burden testing on the captured single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We found a significantly increased BTN2A1 gene burden in CeD patients. To validate these results, the SNP data of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants from the UK Biobank database were subjected to single-variant analyses. Fourteen BTN2A1, ten BTN3A1, and thirteen BTN3A2 SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status. These results are interesting, as BTN2A1 and BTN3A2 have not been associated with CeD risk previously but are known to modulate the activation of Vγ9+ γδ T cells and NK cells. Twenty of the 37 SNPs above were associated with CeD status independent of the risk-associated HLA genotypes. All twenty of these SNPs, alongside a novel SNP not included in the above SNPs, were associated with CeD in HLA-DQ2.5-matched case-control groups. We reaffirm the association of the BTN3A2 locus with CeD risk and identify BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as putative novel CeD risk loci.

Keywords:

coeliac disease; butyrophilin family; hypervariable region 4 (HV4); UK Biobank

1. Introduction

1.1. Background to Coeliac Disease

Coeliac disease (CeD) is a T cell-mediated autoimmune enteropathy triggered by the consumption of gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye, and barley [1]. During active CeD, individuals with underlying genetic risk suffer from small intestinal inflammation after the consumption of dietary gluten [2]. This chronic inflammation causes villous atrophy that can lead to symptoms including abdominal pain, diarrhoea, malabsorption, and malnutrition [3]. Currently, the only treatment for CeD is eliminating gluten from the diet of patients with CeD predisposition [4].

The genetic background of CeD predisposition is still not fully understood, as only 50% of the genetic heritability has been attributed to specific loci [1]. The most well-established CeD risk loci are the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) complex [1,5,6,7,8,9,10]. The HLA-DQ2.5, HLA-DQ2.2, and HLA-DQ8 heterodimers are present in more than 80% of CeD patients [11,12,13,14,15]. In contrast, about 20–30% of healthy controls have the CeD-associated risk HLA genotypes [11,12,16]. These HLA genotypes were estimated to explain about 30–40% of the total CeD genetic heritability [17,18]. Although these HLA genotypes greatly contribute to CeD predisposition, non-HLA loci are increasingly becoming regions of interest in exploring the remaining 50% of CeD heritability. In order to further understand CeD susceptibility, genes involved in immunoregulatory pathways must be examined, such as the butyrophilin family of immunomodulators. Recent evidence has shown the butyrophilin family genes to be non-HLA CeD risk loci of interest [19,20,21].

1.2. The Emerging Role of the Butyrophilin Family of Genes and Their Role in Maintaining γδ T Cells

The butyrophilin proteins are a family of immunoglobulin-like cell surface receptors that have been shown to regulate both innate and adaptive immunity, including the activity of dendritic cells (DC), natural killer (NK) cells, αβ T cells, and γδ T cells [22,23,24,25,26]. Members of the butyrophilin family were found to maintain local γδ T cell compartments in the blood and epithelia of both mice and humans (Table 1) [27,28,29,30,31,32,33]. Hayday and Vantourout [34] hypothesised that butyrophilin proteins serve as a steady-state signal that maintains the local γδ T cell population in a quiescent or inactive state. In the duodenum, the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimers act as the ligand for Vγ4+/Vδ1+ γδ intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) (Figure 1) [21,27,28]. Specifically, the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer binds the germline-encoded hypervariable region 4 (HV4) of T cell receptor gamma (TCR-γ), when the variable (V) gene segment encoding that TCR-γ is the TRGV4 gene.

During active CeD, these γδ T cells, alongside CD4+ and CD8+ αβ IELs, are activated by dietary gluten [40]. Mayassi et al. [21] showed the loss of interaction between BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimers and the duodenal Vγ4+ γδ T cells as a characteristic of active CeD in a study of 62 active CeD, 57 gluten-free diet (GFD)-treated CeD, and 99 control participants. During chronic inflammation induced by dietary gluten, the expression of the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer was lost in the small intestine of patients with CeD predisposition. This was accompanied by the permanent loss of BTNL3/BTNL8-reactive Vγ4+/Vδ1+ γδ T cells. The chronic inflammation only subsided when patients followed a GFD. Although the BTNL3/BTNL8 expression recovered, the local γδ TCR repertoire was permanently reshaped: the innate-like Vγ4+/Vδ1+ γδ T cells and T cell receptor γ variable region 4 (TRGV4) gene transcripts were significantly decreased [21].

1.3. A Hypothesis for the Role of Butyrophilin Variation and γδ T Cells in CeD Risk

Recently, a common BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion copy number variant (CNV) was described by Aigner et al. [41] in a cohort of more than 4000 samples (Appendix A). The study reported that 58.4% of their 346 samples of European ancestry had at least one BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion allele (Table A1). This CNV has been shown to encode a BTNL8*3 fusion protein, which likely has an impaired ability to bind to the Vγ4Vδ1+ T cells in the small intestine [31]. As Mayassi et al. [21] observed a permanent shift in the duodenal γδ TCR repertoire when the interaction between the T cells and the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer was disrupted, this fusion protein could predispose carriers to CeD.

Alongside BTNL3 and BTNL8, BTNL2 and BTN3A1 were also implicated in CeD risk. Goudey et al. [19] have identified 14 SNPs associated with CeD, independent of the known CeD risk HLA loci, in a study of 763 CeD and 1420 control samples. One of the SNPs was located in the proximity of BTNL2, a gene harbouring among the highest density of GWAS hits in autoimmune and inflammatory diseases from the butyrophilin family [42,43,44,45,46,47]. Goudey et al. [19] showed that this SNP was marked as being an expression quantitative trait locus (eQTL) for the BTNL2 gene in RegulomeDB, a database annotating the function of non-coding SNPs [48,49]. Furthermore, RegulomeDB also reported a high level of evidence for transcription factor binding for this eQTL [19].

In a separate paediatric study of 26 active CeD, 5 treated CeD, and 25 control subjects, BTN3A1 expression was associated with active CeD in children [20]. The study examined the differential expression of more than 25 defence-related genes in the three subject groups, demonstrating the upregulation of BTN3A1 mRNA and protein expression in the intestinal epithelial cells of children with active CeD. This is an intriguing finding, as BTN3A1 is required for the phosphoantigen (pAg)-induced activation of Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells in peripheral blood, a subset of γδ T cells not previously implicated in CeD. These two studies indicate that the full functions and roles of the butyrophilin family of proteins in immunomodulation remain to be explored.

These findings raise a previously unexplored question about CeD heritability. Do certain individuals co-inherit polymorphisms in their butyrophilin family genes and/or their TRGV4 gene segments that predispose them to CeD? The objective of this study was to assess the association of butyrophilin gene-based burden with CeD risk using a 94-patient discovery cohort. The association of butyrophilin SNPs with CeD predisposition was validated via the UK Biobank’s genome-wide genotyping dataset of 25,192 participants. In this study, we show that 14 BTN2A1, 10 BTN3A1, and 13 BTN3A2 SNPs are significantly associated with CeD status, while HV4 sequence variation was not associated with CeD risk.

2. Results

The impact of genetic variation in the butyrophilin family of genes and the HV4 sequence of duodenal γδ T cells on CeD predisposition was examined in three studies (Figure 2). First, 48 CeD and 46 control samples were subjected to targeted sequencing to capture SNPs in 10 butyrophilin family genes known to be expressed in small intestinal tissues and immune cells. The sequenced butyrophilin variance in CeD samples was burden tested via the control samples. Next, these results were validated, subjecting all available BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs to single-variant testing, in a cohort of 3094 CeD and 29,762 control participants from the UK Biobank genome-wide genotyping database. Finally, targeted sequencing of the TRGV4-HV4 sequence was undertaken in 141 CeD and 238 control samples, to investigate the association between TRGV4-HV4 variation and CeD risk.

2.1. BTN2A1 SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Risk in a Study of 94 Samples

To investigate the association between butyrophilin genes and CeD risk, a cohort of 48 CeD and 46 control patients was examined for SNPs in 10 butyrophilin family genes, selected based on their gene expression profile in the duodenum, small intestines, and immune cells (Table A2 and Table A3) and their role in immunomodulation: BTN2A1, BTN2A2, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTN3A3, BTNL2, BTNL3, BTNL8, ERMAP, and MOG.

2.1.1. Risk-Associated HLA Genotypes Were Significantly More Frequent in CeD Patients

First, by way of data quality control, the HLA genotypes of the samples were examined. In accordance with previous literature, 95.8% (46/48) of the CeD patients, compared with 54.3% (25/46) of the control group, had CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes (Fisher’s exact test, p = 5.5 × 10⁻¹⁰) (Table A7, Figure A6) [11,13,50].

2.1.2. The BTNL8*BTNL3 Copy Number Variant Was Not Associated with CeD

Next, the BTNL8-BTNL3 loci were examined for the presence of the deletion CNV. The presence of the CNV was determined using a surrogate SNP, the rs72494581 minor allele known to be associated with the presence of the deletion variant [51]. A total of 58.3% (28/48) of the CeD patients and 47.8% (22/46) of the control participants were found to possess at least one deletion variant (Table A8). Interestingly, 10.9% (5/46) of controls were homozygous for the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion compared to only 4.2% (2/48) of CeD patients, but this did not reach statistical significance (Table A8, Figure A7, Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.2144).

2.1.3. BTN2A1 Gene Burden Was Significantly Higher in CeD Patients

To determine whether any of the butyrophilin family variants were associated with CeD risk, gene-based burden testing, using the TRAPD program [52], was carried out to burden test the non-synonymous coding variants identified in the CeD patients against the variants in the control samples.

The analysis was carried out on qualifying variants at sites where more than 90% of samples had a read depth coverage of >10. Of the 108 and 58 non-synonymous coding variants discovered in the CeD and control samples, respectively, only 5 bi-allelic SNPs shared by both the CeD and control groups qualified for burden testing (Table 2, Table A9, Table A10 and Table A11). Only BTN2A1 variants were significantly associated with CeD risk gene burden in both the dominant (adjusted p = 1.46 × 10⁻⁵) and the recessive (adjusted p = 3.70 × 10⁻⁸) models, indicating that the presence of a single qualifying BTN2A1 SNP significantly increased CeD risk (Table 2a,b). BTN2A1 variants were more frequent in CeD patients, as 45.8% (22/48) of CeD participants had at least one qualifying BTN2A1 variant compared to 10.9% (5/46) of controls (Table 2a,b). To summarise, the gene burden analysis of butyrophilin genes in CeD patients compared with controls showed a significant association between BTN2A1 gene burden and CeD risk.

Although these results were promising, due to the BTN2A1 gene being part of the extended MHC region and its close proximity (~4 Mb) to the classical MHC region (6p21.3), we could not exclude the possibility that this significant association could be secondary to the risk-associated HLA genotypes of the CeD patients [54,55]. Therefore, these results were validated in the 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset of the UK Biobank, by single-variant testing of BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTN2A1, BTNL3, and BTNL8 SNPs.

2.2. BTN3A1, BTN3A2, and BTN2A1 Genes Were Significantly Associated with CeD in HLA-DQ2.5-Matched Participants of the UK Biobank Database

The UK Biobank dataset was used to validate the association between BTN2A1 and CeD risk and to investigate the association between CeD and butyrophilin SNPs in potentially CeD-relevant genes. After removing participants with missing HLA imputation or genotype data, the final cohort consisted of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants (Appendix H).

2.2.1. Risk-Associated HLA Genotypes Were Significantly More Frequent in CeD Patients of the UK Biobank

First, as a means of quality control for CeD diagnosis, the HLA genotypes of the CeD and control participants of the UK Biobank were examined. The majority of participants selected from the 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset had CeD risk HLA genotypes regardless of their CeD status (Table A13, Figure A12). Risk HLA genotypes were found in 92.4% (2860/3094) of CeD patients and 57.6% (17,144/29,762) of controls. In both control and CeD participants, HLA-DQ2.5 was the most frequent HLA genotype at 21.6% (6416/29,762) and 53.4% (1652/3094), respectively. Interestingly, HLA-DQ8 was the second most frequent risk genotype in controls at 14.1% (4203/29,762). Meanwhile, individuals heterozygous for HLA-DQ2.5/HLA-DQ8 were the second most frequent in the CeD group, with 19.6% (606/3094) of participants possessing that risk HLA genotype.

To compare the proportion of CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes in CeD and control participants in the 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset, a chi-square test of independence was used. Similar to the results from the targeted butyrophilin sequencing dataset, the CeD participants had significantly higher proportions of CeD risk HLA genotypes compared with controls (X-squared = 4062.5, df = 6, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶).

Indeed, when the association between the CeD risk HLA genotypes and CeD status was investigated using a binomial regression model in the UK Biobank dataset, the association between the risk HLA genotypes and CeD status was confirmed. Interestingly, in the regression analysis, all risk HLA genotypes were significantly associated with CeD (adjusted p ≤ 5.13 × 10⁻⁴, Table A14) except the HLA-DQ8 genotype (adjusted p = 0.125).

2.2.2. BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Status in the UK Biobank

Single-variant analyses were carried out to test the association between CeD status and SNPs from the BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 genes in the UK Biobank [56]. Due to the genotyping array used by the UK Biobank, the genetic information of only a limited number of SNPs from each gene was available. A total of 101 butyrophilin SNPs were individually tested for association with CeD status in the UK Biobank (Table 3). As the HLA loci were significantly associated with CeD risk [1], and the BTN3A1 and BTN3A2 loci are in close proximity [22,24], the CeD risk HLA genotypes were also taken into account for the single-variant analyses by including the risk HLA genotypes in the binomial models and analysing the association between butyrophilin SNPs and CeD status in HLA-matched case-control groups as well. The genetic associations were tested by building binomial regression models, where the association between each variable and CeD status was examined.

A total of 37 SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status in the UK Biobank: 14 BTN2A1, 10 BTN3A1, and 13 BTN3A2 SNPs (adjusted p-value ≤ 0.05, Table 4, Table A15 and Table A16). All 37 SNPs were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the control cohort (Table A17). Most of the significant SNPs were non-coding, with 25 of the 37 SNPs being located in intronic regions. Only one BTN3A1 (rs41266839) and three BTN2A1 (rs13195509, rs3734542, and rs3734543) SNPs were missense variants, and one BTN2A1 (rs13195402) SNP encoded a STOP codon. Of the 37 SNPs, the reference alleles of 30 SNPs were associated with a decreased CeD risk. No BTNL3 nor BTNL8 SNPs were significant in predicting CeD status in the UK Biobank dataset, after Bonferroni correction.

2.2.3. Twenty Butyrophilin SNPs from the UK Biobank Remained Significantly Associated with CeD Status When the Participants’ Risk HLA Genotypes Were Taken into Account

To investigate whether the butyrophilin SNPs in the UK Biobank remained significantly associated with CeD status when taking the HLA loci into account, a second set of binomial regression models was produced. Single-variant models were built for each of the 101 SNPs of interest, which included the risk HLA genotypes of the UK Biobank participants as an additional predictor variable (Table A18). Only 7 BTN2A1, 2 BTN3A1, and 11 BTN3A2 SNPs remained significantly associated with CeD status after applying Bonferroni correction (adjusted p ≤ 0.05, Table 5). All of the significant SNPs were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the control cohort (Table A19). Similar to the previous model, the majority of the significant SNPs were non-coding, with the exception of a STOP gained SNP (rs13195402) and three missense SNPs (rs13195509, rs3734542, and rs3734543) in the BTN2A1 gene. Out of the 17 non-coding SNPs, 11 SNPs were located in intronic regions. The reference alleles for all 20 SNPs were associated with a decreased CeD risk, meaning that the alternate alleles were more frequent in CeD patients. As the HLA loci were taken into account, these SNPs are likely to be real associations with CeD status, instead of being caused by linkage disequilibrium (LD) due to the proximity of the BTN and HLA loci on chromosome 6.

2.2.4. Twenty-One Butyrophilin SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Status in HLA-DQ2.5-Matched Case-Control Groups of UK Biobank Participants

The final set of analyses was carried out to investigate whether the butyrophilin SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status in all of the CeD risk HLA genotype patients. Therefore, the UK Biobank participants were separated into risk HLA-matched CeD and control groups (Table 6). All 101 butyrophilin SNPs were single-variant tested for their association with CeD status in the HLA-matched groups.

HLA-DQ2.5 was the most common risk HLA genotype in CeD patients, both in the UK Biobank as well as in previous studies [11,12]. A significant association between butyrophilin SNPs and CeD status was only present in the HLA-DQ2.5-matched UK Biobank participants. The BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs significantly associated with CeD status in the HLA single-variant testing models remained significant in the HLA-DQ2.5-matched tests as well (Table 7, Table A20 and Table A21). Interestingly, the allele frequency of all significantly associated SNPs significantly differed from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium in the control group (Table A22). Additionally, rs7773938, an intronic BTN2A1 SNP, is a novel SNP that was only significantly associated with CeD status in UK Biobank participants with the HLA-DQ2.5 genotype. The reference alleles of all 21 significant SNPs were more frequent in controls compared to CeD individuals, meaning that having the alternate allele at these loci significantly increases an individual’s CeD risk. These results imply that butyrophilin SNPs could only explain additional CeD risk in HLA-DQ2.5-matched individuals of the UK Biobank. As the presence of these reference alleles remained significantly associated with decreased CeD risk even after HLA-matching, the association with these SNPs was not likely to be caused by LD to the HLA loci. Therefore, the 21 butyrophilin SNPs identified were significantly associated with CeD status and contributed to further CeD risk in UK Biobank participants possessing the HLA-DQ2.5 genotype.

2.3. HV4 Variation Was Not Significantly Associated with CeD Risk in a Study of 379 Samples

2.3.1. TRGV Usage Was Not Significantly Different Between CeD and Control Samples

Previous evidence by our group showed that the γδ T cell repertoire is permanently altered in the duodenum of CeD patients [57]. Mayassi et al. [21] also showed that the BTNL3-reactive duodenal Vγ4+ γδ T cells are lost after active CeD, and the local γδ TCR repertoire is permanently reconfigured.

First, we investigated TRGV usage in the duodenal TRG repertoires of 108 healthy controls and 45 CeD patients (Table 8, Figure A13). The TRGV10, TRGV4, and TRGV2 variable (V) gene segments were the most frequent in this dataset. We focused on the TRGV4 segment usage, which is capable of binding the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer. The mean TRGV4 segment usage did not differ between CeD (18.50% of the TRG repertoire) and healthy control samples (18.06%) (Figure 3, Table A23).

2.3.2. HV4 Sequence Variation Was Not Significantly Associated with CeD Risk

Next, the TRGV4-HV4 amino acid sequences were examined in 141 CeD and 238 healthy control samples (Table 8). As demonstrated by Melandri et al. [29] and Willcox et al. [31], only HV4 loops with the wild-type (reference) KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR amino acid sequence could directly bind BTNL3. Substitutions in the amino acids underlined (KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR) were found to disrupt this direct binding between BTNL3 and Vγ4+ T cells, while substitutions in the following underlined amino acids (KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR) only caused a marginal reduction in binding [31]. As the HV4 is germline-encoded and does not undergo recombination, we hypothesised that variations in the germline-encoded TRGV4-HV4 amino acid sequence could alter the binding of the Vγ4+ γδ T cells to BTNL3 protein in the duodenum, predisposing to CeD.

Seven unique HV4 amino acid sequences were identified in the dataset (Table 9a,b). The reference HV4 sequence KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR capable of binding the BTNL3 protein was the most frequent in both the healthy control (95.8%, 228/238) and CeD (97.9%, 138/141) samples. Approximately 84.9% (202/238) of healthy control samples and 82.3% (116/141) of CeD were homozygous for the WT HV4 sequence. There were no significant differences in the HV4 amino acid sequence distribution between CeD and healthy control samples (Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.26, Figure A14, Table A24). Thus, neither TRGV usage nor HV4 amino acid sequence variation could explain CeD risk in a dataset of 379 samples.

3. Discussion

Around 30% of genetic heritability for CeD can be explained by the HLA risk genotypes HLA-DQ2.5, HLA-DQ8, and HLA-DQ2.2, which were first connected to CeD in 1972 [17,18,58,59]. However, an estimated 50% of genetic heritability remains unexplored [60]. Recently, the butyrophilin family of genes were proposed as non-HLA CeD risk loci [19,20,21]. These genes encode transmembrane proteins that were implicated in regulating the activity of innate and adaptive immune cells, alongside maintaining characteristic epithelial γδ T cell populations in mice and humans [22,24]. Prior to this study, four genes were associated with CeD: BTN3A1, BTNL2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 [19,20,21].

Burden testing the non-synonymous coding butyrophilin SNP data of 46 healthy control and 49 CeD samples showed the BTN2A1 gene burden to be significantly higher in CeD patients in both the dominant (adjusted p = 1.46 × 10⁻⁵) and the recessive models (adjusted p = 3.70 × 10⁻⁸). CNV analysis of the BTNL8-BTNL3 region in these samples did not show a significant association with CeD risk.

The significant association between BTN2A1 SNPs and CeD predisposition was validated using the UK Biobank 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset. Fourteen BTN2A1, 10 BTN3A1, and 13 BTN3A2 SNPs were significantly associated with CeD (adjusted p ≤ 0.05), the majority of which were non-coding variants. When the risk-associated HLA genotypes of these participants were taken into account, only 7 BTN2A1, 2 BTN3A1, and 11 BTN3A2 SNPs remained significant (adjusted p ≤ 0.05), showing HLA-independent associations with CeD risk. Finally, butyrophilin SNPs were single-variant tested in CeD risk HLA-matched groups. The 20 SNPs above, alongside a novel intronic BTN2A1 SNP, were significant in predicting CeD status in 1652 CeD and 6416 control participants with the HLA-DQ2.5 genotype (adjusted p ≤ 0.05).

We thus identified BTN2A1 and BTN3A2 as novel CeD risk loci and corroborated BTN3A1 as a CeD risk locus. The association between BTN3A1 and CeD is in accordance with evidence shown by Pietz et al. [20], who hypothesised that the pAg presentation by intestinal epithelial cells in active CeD may contribute to IFN-γ production and T cell proliferation. Indeed, all three of these butyrophilin genes are involved in the pAg-mediated, innate-like activation of peripheral blood γδ T cells [37,38,61,62]. Interestingly, the majority of the UK Biobank SNPs significantly associated with CeD predisposition were outside coding regions. Of note, UK Biobank validation indicated that only non-coding BTN3A1 and BTN3A2 SNPs were significantly associated with CeD risk. These results could provide an explanation for these genes not having significantly increased gene burden in CeD patients, as the burden testing only considered coding variants.

Due to the association between butyrophilin family members and CeD status, and the involvement of butyrophilin heterodimers in shaping γδ T cell repertoires via binding to Vγ4+ γδ T cells [21,27,28,31], we investigated the likely effects of polymorphisms in the TCR γ V segment, TRGV4, on the interaction between Vγ4+ γδ T cells and the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer, but we failed to find any significant association between the TRGV4-HV4 amino acid sequences and CeD risk, which may suggest that the interaction between Vγ4+ γδ T cells and the BTNL3/BTNL8 heterodimer is not a primary event in determining whether or not CeD develops. However, these results could be due to both the coding regions of butyrophilin genes and the HV4 amino acid sequence being conserved via stabilising selection. This could be due to the interaction between butyrophilins and γδ T cells, including BTN3A1 and BTN3A2 PAg-dependent activation of peripheral blood Vγ9+ T cells, and HV4-BTNL3 interaction, which serves as the maintenance signal for the Vγ4+ γδ T cells in the duodenum [21]. Taking these results together, we provide a new hypothesis for the role of butyrophilins in CeD (Figure 4).

Firstly, these results could imply that BTN2A1 and BTN3A2 act on duodenal Vγ4+ γδ T cells, as well as on peripheral blood Vγ9Vδ2+ γδ T cells, perhaps mediating their pAg-dependent activation (Figure 4a). This hypothesis could explain why the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion variant, which encodes a BTNL8*3 fusion protein but no full-length BTNL3 or BTNL8 proteins, was not significantly associated with CeD risk in the cohort of 94 samples. Participants who are homozygous for the deletion can only express the truncated BTNL8*3 fusion protein, which lacks the BTNL3-IgV extracellular domain required for maintaining the duodenal TCR of Vγ4+ γδ T cells, which we hypothesised could increase CeD risk [21,29,31,41]. If BTN2A1, BTN3A1, or BTN3A2 could provide a survival signal to the Vγ4Vδ1+ IELs in the healthy small intestine, this could explain why controls could be homozygous for the BTNL3/BTNL8 deletion variant without having CeD.

Secondly, BTN2A1 variants may predispose patients to CeD, via BTN2A1’s role as a ligand for DC-SIGN on DCs, which are important in CD pathogenesis in presenting gluten antigens to CD4+ αβ T cells [24,25]. Thus, BTN2A1 might regulate the autoimmune response in CeD indirectly via DC activity (Figure 4b). Additionally, previous evidence has shown that BTN3 proteins can provide co-stimulatory signals to αβ T cells, increasing their production of interferon-γ (IFN-γ), a proinflammatory cytokine [26]. This same study showed the dual effect of butyrophilins on NK cell activity: BTN3A1 upregulated, while BTN3A2 downregulated IFN-γ production and NK cell activation (Figure 4c).

Thirdly, peripheral blood Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells might undergo BTN2A1-mediated PAg-dependent activation in CeD (Figure 4d), either being recruited to infiltrate the small intestine from the peripheral blood or contributing to CeD pathogenesis in an as yet undetermined way. Interestingly, in the analysis of our cohort of 108 healthy control and 45 CeD duodenal samples, only 3–4% of γδ T cells were Vγ9+ T cells (Figure 3, Table 8). There were no significant differences in the proportion of Vγ9+ T cells in CeD and healthy controls (adjusted p = 0.728), a finding which may argue against a key role for Vγ9+ T cells in CeD.

In conclusion, the butyrophilin family of genes are promising immunomodulators involved in connecting the adaptive and innate immunity [24]. Our results provide evidence that the butyrophilin genes BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 may be putative CeD risk loci. Due to their important roles in the maintenance, activation, and regulation of γδ T cells, the butyrophilins may be involved in the pathogenesis of other autoimmune and inflammatory disorders. Our work provides a clear rationale for further research into the role of the butyrophilin family of genes in CeD.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participant Selection Criteria

All patient samples used for sequencing were obtained with full ethical approval (IRAS project ID: 162057, REC reference: 04/Q1604/21, PI: Prof. E. Soilleux).

CeD patient samples were selected using hospital records, while control samples were selected to exclude suspected CeD patients.

Control exclusion criteria:

Has CeD diagnosis;
Malabsorption;
Anaemia;
Lymphocytosis;
On a GFD;
Diarrhoea.

4.1.1. Participant Selection for the Butyrophilin Family Gene Sequencing

A total of 48 CeD samples (40 blood, 8 formalin fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) duodenal biopsies) and 46 control samples (38 blood, 8 FFPE duodenal biopsies) were obtained from Cambridge Haematopathology and Oncology Diagnostic Service or Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Department of Haematology (blood samples) and the Human Research Tissue Bank of Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (FFPE biopsies).

4.1.2. Validation Cohort Participant Selection from the UK Biobank for Single-Variant Analysis

CeD patients and controls were selected from the anonymised UK Biobank online database using the Cohort Browser program on the online Research Analysis Platform (RAP, https://ukbiobank.dnanexus.com/, application ID: 18532, accessed on 23 May 2022). Participants’ sociodemographic, lifestyle, hospital record information, HLA imputation, and genome-wide genotyping data were available from the UK Biobank online resource centre (https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/, accessed on 23 May 2022).

Control and CeD participants were selected based on their responses to the CeD online questionnaire (data-field 21068, https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/field.cgi?id=21086, accessed on 23 May 2022), the dietary web questionnaire (data-field 20086, https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/field.cgi?id=20086, accessed on 23 May 2022), their hospital inpatient record (category 2000, https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/label.cgi?id=2000, accessed on 23 May 2022), and their death record (category 100093, https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/label.cgi?id=100093, accessed on 23 May 2022). All participant clinical data were classified using the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Disease (ICD) system [63]. Most of the hospital inpatient data were coded in ICD-10, but some pre-1997 data collected in Scotland used ICD-9 (https://biobank.ndph.ox.ac.uk/ukb/refer.cgi?id=138483, accessed on 23 May 2022).

Control exclusion criteria were the same as for the blood and biopsy cohort, with the CeD online questionnaire, hospital inpatient record, or death record serving as evidence of a CeD diagnosis.

Coeliac disease inclusion criteria included either of the following:

Hospital diagnosis record includes coeliac disease: ICD9 (5790), ICD10 (K90.0);
Cause of death includes coeliac disease: ICD10 (K90.0).

After removing individuals with missing data, the finalised UK Biobank cohort consisted of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants.

4.1.3. Samples Selected for the HV4 Analysis

The sequencing data from three different datasets were used that were selected using the same criteria. A total of 141 CeD and 238 healthy control tissue samples were selected for the HV4 analysis (Table 8).

4.2. Analysis of Butyrophilin Family Variation in the Targeted Sequencing Cohort

4.2.1. Sequencing of HLA Loci and Selected Butyrophilin Family Genes by Hybridisation Capture

The expression profiles of the 15 butyrophilin family members outlined by Rhodes et al. [24] were examined in the Human Protein Atlas (HPA, accessed on 27 October 2020) for protein (or, where protein was unavailable, mRNA) expression in the duodenum, small intestine, rectum, and colon (Appendix B, Table A2), as well as mRNA expression in T cells, DCs, NK cells, macrophages, regulatory T cells, and γδ T cells (Table A3) [64]. BTN2A1, BTN2A2, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTN3A3, BTNL2, BTNL3, BTNL8, ERMAP, and MOG were selected.

The Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 38 patch release 12 (GRCh38.p12) genomic position of the 10 butyrophilin genes of interest was determined using the NCBI database [65], the regions of interest were uploaded to the Nonacus Ltd. probe design platform (panel id: 890, Table A4) [66], and 2× tiling probes were designed maximising coverage of the target regions, while avoiding under or over sequencing any regions [67,68]. HLA hybridisation probes were designed and provided by Nonacus Ltd. Hybridisation capture was performed using the Nonacus Cell3 Target Hybridisation & Capture Kit (Nonacus) version (b) protocol (Figure A1, Appendix B.2 and Appendix B.3). Captured libraries were sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq system. Sequencing data obtained are available at https://zenodo.org/records/15203243 (accessed on 12 April 2025).

4.2.2. Germline Short-Variant Discovery and HLA Genotyping

The quality of the sequencing files was assessed using the default FastQC v0.11.9 settings, and the Illumina adapters were removed using Trimmomatic v0.39 [69,70].

The variant call pipeline was built by adapting the GATK best practices for germline short-variant discovery [71], the analysis pipelines of Zhao et al. [72], the Du group [73,74], and Matthews [75] (Appendix C). The code for the pipeline calling SNPs from the raw, unmapped FASTQ sequencing files is available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/nonacus_miseq_analysis/variant_call (accessed on 19 March 2025).

HLA genotypes were determined from the sequencing data using HLA-HD version 1.7.0 [76], and the CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes (Section 4.3.1) were called from the alleles. The code for the risk HLA genotyping is available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/nonacus_miseq_analysis/hla_typing (accessed on 24 September 2024).

4.2.3. Copy Number Variation (CNV) Analysis of the BTNL8-BTNL3 Loci

The presence of the 56 kb deletion variant in the BTNL8-BTNL3 loci (chr5:180948027–181003596, GRCh38) was analysed by using a surrogate SNP, the T > C rs72494581 (chr5:181003797, GRCh38) BTNL3 intronic SNP, which is associated with the CNV (Table A5) [51]. Fisher’s exact test was performed to investigate differences in BTNL8-BTNL3 CNV between cohorts.

4.2.4. Burden Testing Analysis

The TRAPD program was used for burden testing the variants found in selected butyrophilin genes in samples of the targeted sequencing cohort, as described in Appendix D.2 (Figure A4) [52,53,77,78].

The variants in the CeD and control groups were burden tested using both the recessive and the dominant models.

The burden testing analysis codes are available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/nonacus_miseq_analysis/burden_testing/Code (accessed on 25 September 2024).

4.3. Single-Variant Testing of Butyrophilin Family Variance in the UK Biobank Database

4.3.1. CeD Risk-Associated HLA Genotyping in the UK Biobank Cohort

HLA genotyping was performed using the HLA imputation values of the UK Biobank 500,000 genome-wide genotyping cohort (Appendix E.1.), to identify the following CeD risk-associated alleles: HLA-DQA1*02:01 with HLA-DQB1*02:02 (making up the HLA-DQ2.2 heterodimer in the DR2-DQ2 haplotype), HLA-DQA1*05:01 with HLA-DQB1*02:01 (making up the HLA-DQ2.5 heterodimer in the DR3-DQ2 and DR5-DQ7/DR7-DQ2 haplotypes), and HLA-DQA1*03:01 with HLA-DQA1*03:02 (making up the HLA-DQ8 heterodimer in the DR4-DQ8 haplotype).

4.3.2. Single-Variant Testing Using Binomial Regression Models

The single-variant testing model was built into R version 4.2.1 by adapting the UK Biobank analysis of Yu et al. [79]. The code for investigating the association between butyrophilin family SNPs and CeD risk in the UK Biobank is available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/ukbiobank_butyrophilin_snp/Butyrophilin_SNP_analysis?ref_type=heads (accessed on 13 November 2024).

The UK Biobank individual SNP data were annotated using the reference SNP cluster IDs (rsIDs) from the SNP database (dbSNP) and the reference allele for these SNPs from the Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37 (GRCh37) [56,65,80,81]. Further methodological information can be found in Appendix E.2.

4.4. Analysis of TRGV Usage and HV4 Variation in CeD and Control Samples

4.4.1. Processing Samples and TCR Sequencing

The methods of DNA extraction, bulk amplification, and sequencing of the TCR repertoires in Dataset 1 and Dataset 2 were described in Foers et al. [57]. For Dataset 3, the DNA from FFPE duodenal samples and from fresh frozen duodenal samples were extracted using the QiaAmp FFPE DNA kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and the DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit (Qiagen), respectively, according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Figure A5).

Hybridisation capture probes were designed for the targeted sequencing of the TCR repertoires of Dataset 3, in collaboration with Nonacus Ltd., Birmingham, UK. Capture probes were designed against the 3′ end of all productive V segments and the 5′ end of all productive J segments available on IMGT, according to their genomic position in the GRCh38.p13 reference genome [82]. Four capture probes (120 bp long) were designed for each productive segment, with the first probe to anneal 10 bp away from the junctional end, with subsequent probes 6 bp away from the previous one.

Samples were prepared for hybridisation capture using the Cell3 Target Library Preparation Kit (b) (Nonacus Ltd., Birmingham, UK), according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform.

4.4.2. TRGV and HV4 Analysis Pipeline

The paired-end FASTQ files containing the TRG sequencing data were analysed using MiXCR v4.0.0 (Appendix F) [83,84].

To examine if the TRGV usage was significantly different between CeD and healthy control duodenal samples, pairwise Mann–Whitney U tests were carried out for each of the 10 TRGV segments. To eliminate any false positives due to multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was applied to the p-values. For each test, the proportion of the specific TRGV segment was compared between the CeD and the control groups.

The germline HV4 analysis was carried out using Python 3, by identifying variations in the amino acid sequence that directly binds BTNL3 [29,31]. The HV4 was defined as amino acids 10–25 of the FR3, as described by Willcox et al. [31]. The HV4 reference amino acid sequence ‘KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR’ (named WT sequence for the purposes of this analysis) was demonstrated to be capable of binding BTNL3 [29,31]. Patients were designated as homozygous or heterozygous for the WT amino acid sequence of the HV4 loop, with a minimum of 10% of each HV4 sequence being used as a cutoff percentage for heterozygosity. Fisher’s exact test was applied to compare HV4 WT frequency between CeD and healthy control samples [85].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.J.S.; methodology, K.N.L.H., S.E., H.K., K.D., L.S., K.P. and A.F.; software, K.N.L.H., T.W.W., H.K. and A.F.; validation, K.N.L.H., A.F. and E.J.S.; formal analysis, K.N.L.H. and A.F.; investigation, K.N.L.H., K.D. and S.E.; resources, E.J.S. and A.F.; data curation, K.N.L.H., S.E. and K.D.; writing—original draft preparation, K.N.L.H.; writing—review and editing, T.W.W. and E.J.S.; visualization, K.N.L.H.; supervision, E.J.S.; project administration, E.J.S.; funding acquisition, E.J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the PhD scholarship of the Department of Pathology, University of Cambridge, and a joint grant from Coeliac UK and Innovate UK to Nonacus Ltd. and EJS (INOV01-18). KNLH also received a Sponsored Dissertation Grant from Coeliac UK. The Cambridge University Hospitals Human Research Tissue Bank is supported by the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Oxfordshire Research Ethics Committee A (4 June 2004, IRAS project ID: 162057, REC reference: 04/Q1604/21, Principal Investigator: E. Soilleux).

Informed Consent Statement

Study-specific patient consent was not required under the terms of our ethical approval. Study subject selection and risks and benefits: As this study required anonymised patient tissue or cells, surplus to diagnostic or therapeutic requirements or tissues collected by others for research purposes (for example during clinical trials, or by commercial tissue providers, or other research groups etc.), no patient recruitment or specific consenting was required and no interventions were undertaken.

Data Availability Statement

Targeted sequencing data of selected butyrophilin family genes in a cohort of 94 samples (2.1): https://zenodo.org/records/15203243 (accessed on 12 April 2025). γδ TCR sequencing data of 46 CeD and 97 healthy control duodenal samples (Dataset 1, Table 2): https://dataview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/object/PRJNA1330789?reviewer=sp7hjkohgpbo6mt3qv7thd57fp (accessed on 26 October 2025). γδ TCR sequencing data of 11 CeD and 11 healthy control duodenal samples (Dataset 2, Table 2): https://dataview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/object/PRJNA1330746?reviewer=dcl0ipo3ftc3m83b637i0hjmpd (accessed on 26 October 2025). γδ TCR sequencing data of 84 CeD and 130 healthy control blood samples (Dataset 3, Table 2): https://dataview.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/object/PRJNA1330754?reviewer=uoqvavqemvh35apdc0ifn99585 (accessed on 26 October 2025).

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Haematopathology and Oncology Diagnostic Service (HODS), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, for the provision of patient DNA samples. We thank the Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Human Tissue Research Biobank (HTRB) for the provision of patient tissue samples. We thank the patients, without whom this research would not have been possible. This research has been conducted using the UK Biobank Resource under Application Number 18532. We thank the participants of the UK Biobank.

Conflicts of Interest

L.S. and K.P. are employees of Nonacus Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

BTN/BTNL	Butyrophilin/butyrophilin-like
CeD	Coeliac disease
CNV	Copy number variation
DC	Dendritic cell
GFD	Gluten-free diet
FFPE	Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded
HLA	Human leukocyte antigen
HPA	Human Protein Atlas
HV4	Hypervariable region 4
IEL	Intraepithelial lymphocyte
NK cell	Natural Killer cell
TRGV	T cell receptor γ variable region
SNP/SNV	Single-nucleotide polymorphism/variation
WT	Wild-type

Appendix A. The Molecular Background of the 56 kb BTNL3*BTNL8 Deletion Variant

The BTNL3 and BTNL8 loci are segmental duplications and share a high sequence similarity. During meiosis, highly identical sequences are prone to recombination, which can give rise to CNVs. This is the likely explanation for the BTNL8*BTNL3 56 kb deletion copy number described by Aigner et al. [41]. This study reported that 58.4% of their 346 samples of European ancestry had at least one BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion allele (Table A1). This CNV has been shown to encode a BTNL8*3 fusion protein, which consists of the transmembrane domain, the extracellular IgV and IgC domains of BTNL8, and the intracellular signalling domain of BTNL3. As the BTNL3-IgV domain is missing in the fusion protein, it is plausible that the BTNL8*3 fusion protein has an impaired ability to bind to the Vγ4Vδ1+ T cells in the small intestine [31].

Table A1. The BTNL8*BTNL3 copy number variation is present in 58.4% of individuals of European ancestry, as first described by Aigner et al. [41]. Carriers are defined as individuals with at least one BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion allele. Abbreviations: CEU: Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry; HapMap: International HapMap Project; het.: heterozygous; HGDP: Human Genome Diversity Panel; hom.: homozygous; N: number.

	Population	Hom. for Deletion	Het. for Deletion	Hom. for Full Sequences	Deletion Allele N	Deletion Allele Frequency	Group N	Carriers N	Carriers %
HapMap	CEU	17	56	68	90	0.319	141	73	51.8
HapMap	Toskani, Italia	9	45	34	63	0.358	88	54	61.4
HGDP	France	7	28	17	42	0.404	52	35	67.3
	Italy	5	18	13	28	0.389	36	23	63.9
	Italy (Bergamo)	3	2	9	8	0.286	14	5	35.7
	Orkney Islands	1	11	3	13	0.433	15	12	80.0
Total	European ancestry	42	160	144	244	0.353	346	202	58.4

Appendix B. Selecting and Sequencing the Butyrophilin Genes of Interest

Appendix B.1. HPA Expression Profiles of Butyrophilin Family Genes

Table A2. The expression of the butyrophilin family members in intestinal tissues provided by the HPA. Butyrophilin protein expression in (a) the duodenum and in (b) the small intestine, colon, and rectum was extracted from the Tissue section of the Human Protein Atlas database [64,86].

(a) Butyrophilin family expression in the duodenum
	Reliability as Defined by the HPA	Protein Expression in Duodenum (IHC) *If RNA Data Only*	Comment			Included?
ERMAP	Uncertain	High	Uncertain Tissue Atlas reliability score High expression in digestive tissues Low–medium expression in immune cells			Yes
MOG	Enhanced	None	Not expressed in immune cells or digestive tissues Genomic variance control for the significance of butyrophilin variation in CeD risk			Yes
BTN1A1	Supported	None	Not expressed in digestive tissues or immune cells			No
BTN2A1	Approved	Medium	Included due to reliability score and expression Implicated in the stimulation of Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells [37]			Yes
BTN2A2	Uncertain	High	Uncertain Tissue Atlas reliability score Medium–high expression in digestive tissues Expressed in immune cells			Yes
BTN3A1	Approved	Medium	Included due to reliability score and expression Implicated in the stimulation of Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells [30]			Yes
BTN3A2	Uncertain	Medium	Uncertain Tissue Atlas reliability score Implicated in the stimulation of Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells [27]			Yes
BTN3A3	Enhanced	Medium	Included due to reliability score and expression			Yes
BTNL2	Pending	None	Pending Tissue Atlas reliability score HLA-independent significant association with CeD [19]			Yes
BTNL3	Pending	High	Pending Tissue Atlas reliability score No protein expression data available for the intestinal tissues Previously documented role in CeD [21]			Yes
BTNL8	Enhanced	Medium	Previously documented role in CeD [21]			Yes
BTNL9	Pending	Low	Pending Tissue Atlas reliability score No protein expression data available for the intestinal tissues Not expressed in immune cells			No
BTNL10	NA	NA	No entry			No
SKINT1L	NA	NA	No entry			No
BTN2A3P	NA	NA	No entry			No
(b) Expression of selected butyrophilin family members in the small intestine, colon, and rectum
Tissue Expression (IHC) If RNA Data Only						Included in the Panel?
	Reliability as Defined by the HPA	Small Intestine (Glandular)	Duodenum (Glandular)	Rectum (Glandular)	Colo (Glandular)
ERMAP	Uncertain	High	High	High	High	Yes
MOG	Enhanced	none	none	none	none	Yes
BTN2A1	Approved	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Yes
BTN2A2	Uncertain	High	High	Medium	Medium	Yes
BTN3A1	Approved	High	Medium	High	High	Yes
BTN3A2	Uncertain	High	Medium	Medium	Medium	Yes
BTN3A3	Enhanced	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Yes
BTNL2	Pending	Very low	none	none	none	Yes
BTNL3	Pending	High	High	High	High	Yes
BTNL8	Enhanced	Medium	Medium	none	none	Yes

The reliability score of each entry was provided by the HPA. The score was based on the reliability between the RNA sequencing and antibody staining data. For most genes, the HPA provided immunohistochemical evidence for the protein expression of the genes. Only RNA sequencing data were available for BTNL2, BTNL3, and BTNL9 expression, denoted with *. Evidence linking the butyrophilins to immune cell function and CeD risk was also used to determine inclusion in the custom sequencing panel [19,21,30]. The expression of butyrophilin family members in (b) is shown only for the genes that were selected for the custom probe panel [data accessed in 2021].

Table A3. The expression of butyrophilin family genes of interest in immune cells provided by the HPA. The butyrophilin family mRNA expression data in immune cells were accessed from the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) [64,86].

Immune Cell Expression (RNA Sequencing)								Included in the Panel?
	Reliability as Defined by the HPA	γδ T Cells	T Cells	T-Reg	DCs	Macrophages	NK Cells
ERMAP	Uncertain	Low	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low	Yes
MOG	Enhanced	Very low	None	Very low	None	None	None	Yes
BTN2A1	Approved	Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	High	Low	Yes
BTN2A2	Uncertain	Low	Medium	Medium	High	High	Medium	Yes
BTN3A1	Approved	High	High	High	Low	Medium	High	Yes
BTN3A2	Uncertain	High	High	High	Medium	High	High	Yes
BTN3A3	Enhanced	High	High	High	Medium	Medium	High	Yes
BTNL2	Pending	None	None	None	None	None	None	Yes
BTNL3	Pending	None	None	None	None	None	None	Yes
BTNL8	Enhanced	None	None	None	None	None	None	Yes

The reliability score of each entry was provided by the HPA. The score was based on the reliability between the RNA sequencing and antibody staining data. The RNA expression data from T cells, DCs, NK cells, and macrophages were selected from the Single cell type section of the gene entries. The RNA expression data from T-regs and γδ T cells were accessed from the Immune cell type section of the gene entries [data accessed in 2021].

Table A4. The GRCh38.p12 genomic location of the selected butyrophilin genes.

Gene of Interest	Location (GRCh38.p12)
BTN2A1	chr6:26,457,955–26,476,622
BTN2A2	chr6:26,382,893–26,394,874
BTN3A1	chr6:26,402,269–26,415,216
BTN3A2	chr6:26,365,170–26,378,320
BTN3A3	chr6:26,440,504–26,453,415
BTNL2	chr6:32,393,339–32,408,879
BTNL3	chr5:180,988,846–181,006,727
BTNL8	chr5:180,899,097–180,952,166
ERMAP	chr1:42,817,122–42,844,991
MOG	chr6:29,657,092–29,672,365

Appendix B.2. Modified Nonacus Cell3 Hybridisation Capture and Illumina Sequencing

To summarise the modified protocol, the DNA quality of all samples was measured initially, to acquire 200 ng input DNA for the fragmentation step (1.B) of the hybridisation capture protocol (Figure A1). Fragmentation time in step 1.B was modified to 30 min to achieve 200 bp DNA fragments. Afterwards, the Genomic Tapestation kit (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used to check the correct fragment size.

Figure A1. The Nonacus Cell3 capture hybridisation capture method was modified for the HLA and butyrophilin sequencing panel. All modifications to the manufacturer’s protocol were noted with *. The HLA probes were provided by Nonacus Ltd.

Next, in step 1.C, unique molecular identifier (UMI) adapters were ligated to the DNA fragments. During the magnetic bead clean up using NGS Target Pure Clean-Up Beads (Nonacus), the adapter-ligated DNA fragments were incubated for 6 min on the magnetic strip. Nuclease-free water was used in the final step of the clean up.

The pre-hybridisation PCR in step 1.D was carried out for 4 cycles. Afterwards, the DNA concentration of each reaction was measured in step 1.E. Samples with DNA concentrations lower than 10 ng/μL were subjected to additional rounds of amplification, and steps 1.D and 1.E were repeated. CB22, CB24, CB26, CB27, and CB30 had low DNA concentration after the amplification step; therefore, they were subjected to 5 additional cycles of PCR. Sample NB7 was also subjected to 6 more cycles of PCR.

In step 2.A, the samples were pooled together, each library containing DNA fragments from 8 patients. For each sample, 125 ng of DNA was used, and the pooled libraries were dried using a vacuum concentrator for 30 min. Each pooled library was hybridised overnight at 65 °C with the designed butyrophilin probes and a 1:50 dilution of HLA probes provided by Nonacus.

In step 2.B, the hybridised library was captured on Dynabeads M-270 Streptavidin beads (Invitrogen/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Post-hybridisation PCR was carried out for 20 cycles in step 2.C. This was followed by bead clean up using NGS Target Pure Clean-Up Beads. Similar to step 1.C, the beads and the amplified captured library were incubated for 6 min on the magnetic strip. Nuclease-free water was used in the final step of the clean up.

In step 2D, the concentration of the captured library was measured using Qubit (CAT Q32851, lot 2313066), and the size of the DNA fragments in each hybridisation library was quantified using the 4200 Tapestation (CAT G2991A, lot DEDAA01701).

Illumina MiSeq sequencing required each captured hybridisation library to be diluted to 10 nM concentration. The concentration of each sample in nM was calculated using the following equation:

c o n c e n t r a t i o n (n M) = \frac{c o n c e n t r a t i o n (n g / μ L)}{660 \times D N A f r a g m e n t s i z e (b p)} \times 10^{6}

where the concentration (ng/μL) was the DNA concentration of the captured library as quantified by Qubit, and the DNA fragment size (bp) was the average DNA fragment size as measured by Tapestation.

After each of the 12 hybridised libraries was diluted to 10 nm, 2 μL of each diluted library was mixed together. Afterwards, 10 μL was sent to the Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, UK for sequencing using the Illumina MiSeq system (San Diego, CA, USA).

Appendix B.3. Measuring DNA Quantity and Fragment Size

A Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Invitrogen) was used to measure nucleic acid quantity, using the Qubit dsDNA High Sensitivity Quantification Assay kit (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturers’ instructions.

The 4200 Tapestation System (Agilent Technologies) was used to measure the fragment size of DNA samples. The Genomic DNA ScreenTape Analysis kit (Agilent Technologies) was used to measure the fragment sizes of DNA samples after step 1.B of the Nonacus hybridisation capture protocol (Nonacus). The D1000 ScreenTape Assay kit (Agilent Technologies) was used to measure the DNA sizes of the pooled hybridisation libraries in step 2.D of the Nonacus hybridisation capture protocol.

Appendix C. Detailed Germline Short-Variant Discovery Protocol

Appendix C.1. Per Sample Preprocesses and Variant Call Using GATK

The variant discovery process for the targeted sequencing cohort was split into two parts. In the first part, each patient sample was processed separately. The variants were called per sample as recommended by the GATK v4.2.6.0 documentation. In the second part of the variant discovery process, the variant-called samples were consolidated, and genotyping was performed jointly for the whole cohort (Appendix C.2).

The workflow management software Snakemake 7.12.1 (accessed on 1 August 2022) was used to orchestrate the per sample preprocessing and variant calling part of the pipeline (Figure A2) [87].

Figure A2. The genetic variants were called per sample for the hybridisation capture samples by adapting GATK best practices. Each box symbolises a step or rule in the Snakemake workflow [87]. The directed acyclic graph was created using the Snakemake software’s built-in commands.

Based on the preprocessing methods of Cucco et al. [73,74], the adapter-trimmed raw sequencing files were mapped to the Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 38 (GRCh38) human reference genome using the Burrow-Wheeler Aligner (bwa) v0.7.17 program in the ‘align_bwamem’ rule [88,89]. The resulting sequence alignment map (SAM) files were converted to binary alignment maps (BAM) (‘sam_to_bam’) and then sorted (‘sort_bam’) and indexed using the SAMtools version 1.16.1 program [77]. The mapping efficiency of the sorted BAM files was assessed using the command ‘samtools stats’.

Next, we used GATK v4.2.6.0 to carry out germline short-variant discovery in accordance with GATK best practices [71]. First, any duplicate reads that were derived from the same original DNA sample were marked using the MarkDuplicates tool (‘mark_duplicates’). This was followed by calculating (‘base_recalibrate’) and correcting any errors detected in the base quality scores (‘apply_bqsr’) using the BaseRecalibrator and ApplyBQSR tools, respectively. Following these preprocessing steps, the SNP and indel variants were called for each sample using the HaplotypeCaller tool in GVCF mode (‘variant_call’).

Appendix C.2. Joint Genotyping Using GATK and Variant Annotation Using VCFtools and ANNOVAR

In the second part of the variant discovery process, the samples that had undergone variant calling were subjected to consolidation, followed by joint genotyping. Here, the samples were separated into CeD and control groups before consolidating the samples into a joint dataset.

The joint genotyping was carried out using GATK programs with default settings (Figure A3). First, the germline cohort data were created by consolidating the per sample genomic variant call format (GVCF) files created by the HaplotypeCaller tool as described above. The sample consolidation step was carried out by the GenomicsDBImport tool (‘consolidate_gvcfs’). The resulting cohort database was passed to the GenotypeGVCFs joint genotyping tool (‘jointcall_cohort’). Next, the raw variants were filtered in a two-step process. First, the variant quality scores on the log-odds scale (VQSLOD) were calculated using the VariantRecalibrator tool (‘variant_recalibration’). A filtering threshold was applied to these variant quality scores to produce a set of high-quality variant calls using the ApplyVQSR tool (‘applyvqsr’). The output of the above joint cohort processes was a recalibrated VCF file that contained all genotyping data of the cohort. The recalibrated VCF files were annotated by applying VCFtools v0.1.17 in frequency (‘run_vcffreq’), count (‘run_vcfcounts’), and comparison (‘compare_vcf’) mode [90]. Variant annotation was also carried out using the table_annovar program from ANNOVAR version 8 June 2020 with default settings (‘table_annovar’) [91].

Figure A3. The samples of the targeted sequencing cohort (n = 94) were jointly genotyped, and the variants were annotated using an adapted GATK workflow. Each box symbolises a step or rule in the Snakemake workflow [87]. The directed acyclic graph was created using the Snakemake software’s built-in commands.

Appendix D. Detailed CNV Analysis and Burden Testing Protocols

Appendix D.1. BTNL8*BTNL3 CNV Analysis

Table A5. The rs72494581 surrogate SNP was used to infer the CNV at the BTNL8-BTNL3 region of chromosome 5.

rs72494581 Genotypes		Associated CNV at BTNL8-BTNL3 Region of Chromosome 5
TT	Homozygous for reference allele	Full-length BTNL8-BTNL3 region on both copies of chromosome 5
CT	Heterozygous	One copy has full-length BTNL8-BTNL3 region One copy has BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion
CC	Homozygous for alternative allele	BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion on both copies of chromosome 5

Appendix D.2. Detailed Burden Testing Protocol

To summarise, qualifying variants within a gene were selected that had a low minor allele frequency or were predicted to be pathogenic. Any qualifying SNPs with more than two alleles, called multi-allelic sites, were split into SNPs with two alleles for the analysis: the reference allele and one of the alternative alleles. These variants are termed bi-allelic variants [53]. The disease risk burden, or the number of minor alleles, in the control and CeD cohorts was counted and compared. The burden testing was performed using dominant models and recessive models in TRAPD. The dominant model considers individuals as carriers for gene burden, if they have at least one qualifying variant from the selected sites within the gene, while the recessive model requires the presence of two or more variants to be labelled a carrier [53]. As gene burden is an additive value, the zygosity of the qualifying sites does not matter, only the number of qualifying variants. For example, in a gene with three qualifying sites, an individual who is homozygous for the alternate allele for one qualifying site carries the same amount of gene burden as an individual who is heterozygous for two of the qualifying sites. The analysis was modified from the one described by Guo [53], to adapt it to this cohort, as the original pipeline used an external control dataset.

The GATK processed sequences were subjected to further preprocessing before being burden tested with TRAPD, as recommended by Guo [53]. First, multi-allelic variants were separated using BCFtools version 1.16, as required by the TRAPD manual [77]. Next, the control and CeD cohort sequencing files were annotated using Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor (VEP) 109.3, and the SNPs were filtered to contain only non-synonymous coding variants [78]. The hybridisation capture sequencing files were then analysed after read depth filtering (Figure A4).

Figure A4. The variants in the CeD cohort (n = 48) were burden tested via the controls (n = 46) using the TRAPD program. Test Rare vAriants with Public Data (TRAPD) was used to burden test the variants in the hybridisation capture CeD cohort (n = 48) against the control cohort (n = 46) [52]. The annotated CeD and control files from the GATK pipeline were preprocessed as recommended by the manual [53]. The variants were burden tested after read depth filtering. Steps in which the code was modified are marked with *.

The cohort files were read depth filtered using VEP to select sites, where more than 90% of samples had a read depth coverage of >10. The final step of the preprocessing was to index and intersect the CeD and control sequencing files, to get the common SNPs between the two groups.

Following the preprocessing, the TRAPD code was applied using Python 2.7 to create the SNP file from the CeD and the control cohort sequencing files using ‘make_snp_file.py’, which contains the qualifying variants from each gene. Carriers of the qualifying SNPs from both the control and the CeD files were counted using the ‘count_cases.py’ file. The ‘burden.R’ code was modified to adapt it to the targeted sequencing cohort, as the original pipeline used an external database as the control, while this analysis uses the control sequences from the same cohort.

Appendix E. Detailed Protocol Single-Variant Testing Analysis of Selected Butyrophilin SNPs in the UK Biobank

Appendix E.1. HLA Genotyping in the UK Biobank Using the HLA Imputation Data

The HLA typing code using the UK Biobank HLA imputation data is available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/ukbiobank_hla_typing/hla_imputation_only (accessed on 7 March 2025).

To summarise, the code used the HLA imputation values from data-field 22182. These values describe the likelihood of each HLA genotype, of which 14 were HLA-DQA1 alleles and 18 were HLA-DQB1 alleles. The HLA alleles were imputed by the UK Biobank from SNP data using the HLA*IMP:02 program [92]. In resource 182 (https://biobank.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/crystal/refer.cgi?id=182, accessed on 18 May 2022), the UK Biobank suggested using a threshold value of 0.7. If any HLA allele had an imputation value below 0.7, it was treated as an absent allele. The code applied this posterior threshold on the HLA imputation data for each participant, and the output was a list of HLA alleles that each participant had.

Afterwards, the CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes were called from the HLA allele data. The code calling CeD risk genotypes from the HLA imputation-derived alleles is available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/blob/dropbox/ukbiobank_hla_typing/hla_imputation_only/ukbhla_fullcohort.ipynb (accessed on 2 September 2024).

To identify if a participant had CeD risk genotypes, the code looked for the presence of the risk alleles at the HLA-DQA1 and HLA-DQB1 loci. Participants who did not have alleles present at either locus were removed from the analysis. The participant was determined to have a CeD-associated HLA risk genotype if at least one copy of the risk HLA-DQA1 and the HLA-DQB1 alleles was present. If there were alleles present for more than one HLA risk genotype, the participant was typed as possessing both HLA risk genotypes.

Appendix E.2. Detailed Single-Variant Testing of BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs in the UK Biobank

As the SNPs were annotated using the dbSNP instead of their genomic position, and the dbSNP was updated to GRCh38 data at the time of this analysis, the SNP data could be used without further modification.

The individual SNP data in the UK Biobank were provided as the number of dbSNP reference alleles at each site, where 2 indicates that the individual is homozygous for the reference allele, while 1 indicates heterozygosity. If a participant had 0 reference alleles at a site, this could indicate homozygosity for the alternate allele or heterozygosity for two of the alternate alleles, depending on the number of potential alternate alleles. However, at the time of the analysis, the dataset did not provide information on which alternate allele was present.

To summarise the butyrophilin variant association analysis, firstly, the UK Biobank genome-wide genotyping dataset was curated and preprocessed for analysis. The downloaded per-chromosome UK Biobank genotyping data were loaded into R as a BEDMatrix object using the BGData 2.4.1 R package [80]. Afterwards, the genotype and phenotype data for the selected UK Biobank participants were merged. Next, data for all SNPs recorded in the BTN2A1, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 human genes were obtained from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) SNP database [65,81]. These SNPs were intersected with the genome-wide genotyping data, to identify the butyrophilin SNPs present in the UK Biobank dataset, which were 27 BTN3A1, 21 BTN3A2, 10 BTNL3, 13 BTNL8, and 30 BTN2A1 SNPs. The final butyrophilin genotyping data in the UK Biobank dataset were provided as count data for the number of reference alleles at each SNP, identified by their rsIDs. Due to multiple testing, the resulting p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction.

Secondly, the association between butyrophilin variants and CeD risk was tested using binomial regression models, or binomial generalised linear models. In all of the linear models, the response variable was CeD status (CeD or no CeD, Table A6). The assumptions of the tests were that predictor variables were independent of each other. In the first test, the association between CeD risk HLA genotypes and CeD status was tested using one binomial model. In the second group of tests, individual binomial models were used to analyse the association between each butyrophilin family SNP and CeD risk. In the third group of tests, iterative binomial models were used that analysed the combined effect of butyrophilin family SNPs and HLA risk genotypes on CeD risk. In the fourth group of tests, the association between butyrophilin SNPs and CeD risk were analysed in HLA-matched groups.

Table A6. The binomial models tested the association between HLA risk genotypes and/or the individual butyrophilin family SNPs. Due to multiple testing, the resulting p-values were adjusted using Bonferroni correction. Abbreviations: CeD: coeliac disease; HLA: human leukocyte antigen; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Test/Group Number	Association Being Tested	Predictor Variable(s)	Response Variable
First test	Association between HLA risk genotypes and CeD risk	HLA risk genotype	CeD status: CeD or control
Second group of tests (101 models)	Association between individual butyrophilin SNPs and CeD risk	Butyrophilin SNP: 2 reference alleles 1 reference allele 0 reference allele	CeD status: CeD or control
Third group of tests (101 models)	Association between the combined effect of HLA genotypes and butyrophilin SNPs and CeD risk	HLA risk genotype Butyrophilin SNP: 2 reference alleles 1 reference allele 0 reference allele	CeD status: CeD or control
Fourth group of tests	Association between butyrophilin SNPs and CeD risk in HLA-matched groups	Butyrophilin SNP: 2 reference alleles 1 reference allele 0 reference allele	CeD status: CeD or control

Thirdly, the risk ratio or odds ratio (OR), the p-value, and the 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each binomial model assessing the association between butyrophilin SNPs and CeD risk. The direction of each SNP was calculated from the natural logarithm of the OR values (ln(OR)). SNPs where ln(OR) < 1 indicated that the SNP decreased CeD risk. SNPs where ln(OR) > 1 indicated that the SNP increased CeD risk. Due to multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was applied for each group of tests.

The rsnps 0.5.0.0 R package was used to annotate the butyrophilin family SNPs in the UK Biobank significantly associated with CeD using the NCBI database [93]. The Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of each SNP in the control group was assessed using the HardyWeinberg 1.7.7 R package [94].

Appendix F. Detailed TRGV4 Usage and HV4 Amino Acid Sequence Analysis Pipeline

Figure A5. CeD and healthy control patient TRG sequencing data from three cohorts were used to analyse differences in TRGV usage and germline HV4 sequences.

At the time of analysis, the software had a built-in reference library and could identify the clonotypes and gene segments used in the repertoire. The ‘analyze amplicon’ was a one-step command that aligned the sequencing data, assembled and exported the clonotypes found in the TCR repertoire. For the purposes of analysing the germline HV4 sequence, the region of interest was set to include the FR3 of the TRGV genes (‘--region-of-interest {FR3Begin:CDR3End}’). The resulting text file contained the nucleotide sequence (‘targetSequences’), amino acid sequence (‘aaSeq’), clone count (‘cloneCount’), and V and J segment usage (‘allVHitsWithScore’, ‘allJHitsWithScore’) for each unique TRG sequence. The results from the MiXCR output were analysed using the pipeline available at https://gitlab.developers.cam.ac.uk/path/soilleux/soilleux-group/ced_butyrophilin_phd/-/tree/dropbox/trgv_hv4_analysis (accessed on 20 March 2025).

To identify the differences in the TRGV usage of the duodenal TRG repertoire, the read count of the TRGV section (‘allVHitsWithScore’) from the MiXCR output was processed using Python 3. Only samples from the duodenum were analysed for TRGV usage. Therefore, TRGV data from blood samples were not subjected to TRGV usage analysis.

Appendix G. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.1

Figure A6. CeD patients (n = 46) had significantly higher proportions of CeD risk HLA genotypes compared to controls (n = 48). The (a) number and (b) percentage of individuals with CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes were significantly higher in CeD patients compared to controls in this dataset (Fisher’s exact test, p = 5.5 × 10⁻¹⁰). The HLA genotypes for participants were called using HLA-HD [95].

Table A7. CeD-associated HLA genotypes were found in 95.8% of CeD patients (n = 48) and 45.7% of controls (n = 46). (a) The CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes were called using HLA-HD [95]. (b) The HLA-DQA1 and HLA-DQB1 alleles of the two CeD patients, who did not have CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes. The HLA-DQA1 allele of sample CD1 could not be typed by HLA-HD. CeD patients possessed a significantly higher proportion of risk HLA genotypes, when compared with controls in this dataset (Figure A6, Fisher’s exact test, p = 5.5 × 10⁻¹⁰).

(a)
HLA Genotypes	HLA-DQ2.5	HLA-DQ8	HLA-DQ2.2	HLA-DQ2.5 and DQ8	HLA-DQ2.5 and DQ2.2	HLA-DQ8 and DQ2.2	Other
CeD patients	22	3	2	6	13	0	2
Control participants	10	2	6	0	1	2	25
(b)
Sample	HLA-DQA1 Allele		HLA-DQB1 Allele		Potential HLA-DQ Type
CB26	HLA-DQA101:01:01, HLA-DQA102:01		HLA-DQB102:01:01, HLA-DQB105:01:01		HLA-DQ5.1
CD1	Not typed		HLA-DQB102:01:01, HLA-DQB106:02:01		Unknown

Table A8. At least 47% of CeD patients (n = 48) and controls (n = 46) had the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion variant using the rs72494581 surrogate SNP. The BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion variant encodes a truncated BTNL8-BTNL3 fusion protein [41]. Dart et al. [51] identified rs72494581 in the intronic region of BTNL3, which serves as a surrogate SNP, and the alleles are associated with the BTNL8*BTNL3 copy number variant. The major allele, the T allele, is associated with the full-length BTNL3 and BTNL8 genes, while the minor allele, the C allele, is associated with the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion. The differences between the frequencies in CeD and control individuals failed to reach statistical significance (Figure A8, Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.2144).

rs72494581 Genotype	TT	CT	CC
BTNL8-BTNL3 genes	Homozygous for full-length sequence	Heterozygous for BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion	Homozygous for BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion
Coeliac disease patients	20	26	2
Control participants	24	17	5

Figure A7. There were no significant differences in the frequency of the BTNL8*BTNL3 copy number variants between CeD patients (n = 48) and controls (n = 46). The BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion variant encodes a truncated BTNL8-BTNL3 fusion protein [41]. Dart et al. [51] identified rs72494581 in the intronic region of BTNL3, which serves as a surrogate SNP, and the alleles are associated with the BTNL8*BTNL3 copy number variants. The major allele, the T allele, is associated with the full-length BTNL3 and BTNL8 genes, while the minor allele, the C allele, is associated with the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion. Fisher’s exact testing showed that there were no significant differences (adjusted p = 0.2144) in the frequency of the BTNL8*BTNL3 deletion variant-associated rs72494581 genotypes in the CeD and control groups.

Table A9. Less than 40% of sites found in CeD samples were shared with controls. Shared polymorphic sites between CeD and control samples in (a) the whole hybridisation capture dataset, (b) in non-synonymous coding sites, (c) in read depth-filtered non-synonymous coding sites. Read depth was defined as the number of sequence reads per site. Read depth filtering was applied as a quality control step. Sites where the read depth (dp) was more than 10, in more than 90% of the samples in each group, passed the read depth filter. Sites described above can be multi-allelic, meaning they may have more than one alternative allele.

(a)
	Number of Butyrophilin Family Sites	Sites Unique to Group	Shared Sites	Non-Matching Overlapping Sites
Coeliac	1168	701	435	32
Control	769	302
(b)
	Number of Butyrophilin Family non-Synonymous Coding Sites		Sites Unique to Group	Shared Sites
Coeliac	108		79	21
Control	58		29
(c)
	Number of Butyrophilin Family Non-Synonymous Coding Sites (>90% Samples in Group dp > 10)		Sites Unique to Group	Shared Sites
Coeliac	60		54	6
Control	21		15

Non-matching overlapping sites were defined as polymorphic sites, where the reference and/or alternate alleles identified in each group were different alleles. For example, a non-matching overlapping SNP would have the same base pair position on the chromosome with the same reference allele, but the alternate allele in one group is different from the other group’s. Comparisons were carried out using vcftools 0.1.17 [90].

Table A10. Percentage data of burden testing of butyrophilin variants in CeD samples against controls from the hybridisation capture dataset.

Gene	Qual. SNPs	CeD %(≥1 HET)	CeD %(≥2 HET)	CeD %(HOM ALT)	CeD Total Qual. allele Freq	Control %(≥1 HET)	Control %(≥2 HET)	Control %(HOM ALT)	Control Total Qual. Allele Freq	Dominant Model p-Value	Recessive Model p-Value
BTN2A1	3	45.8	43.8	6.3	0.281	10.9	8.7	0.0	0.047	1.46 × 10⁻⁵	3.70 × 10⁻⁸
BTN3A2	1	10.4	0.0	2.1	0.073	19.6	0.0	2.2	0.120	0.929	0.946
ERMAP	1	43.8	0.0	16.7	0.385	43.5	0.0	15.2	0.370	0.516	0.988

Burden testing was carried out on butyrophilin variants in CeD samples against controls from the dataset with read depth filtering. During read depth filtering, only sites where more than 90% of samples had a read depth coverage of >10 were selected. Percentage values in columns 3–5 and 7–9 show the percentage of individuals with each genotype within the CeD and the control groups of the dataset, respectively. Significant results are highlighted in bold. Abbreviations: CeD: coeliac disease; freq: frequency; HET: heterozygous; HOM ALT: homozygous for the alternative allele; N: number; qual.: qualifying; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Table A11. Per sample genotype of participants at significant BTN2A1 qualifying SNPs from the hybridisation capture cohort.

(a) CeD participants
Position	6:26463432	6:26468098	6:26468317
rsID	rs13195509	rs3734542	rs3734543
CB22	hom alt	hom alt	hom alt
CB24	hom alt	hom alt	hom alt
CB26	het	het	het
CB27	het	het	het
CB29	het	het	het
CB31	het	het	het
CB32	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB33	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB34	het	het	het
CB35	het	het	het
CB36	het	het	het
CB37	het	het	het
CB38	het	het	het
CB39	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB40	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB41	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB43	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB44	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB45	het	het	het
CB46	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB48	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB49	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB50	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB51	het	het	het
CB52	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB53	het	het	het
CB54	het	het	het
CB55	het	het	het
CB56	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB57	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB58	het	het	het
CB59	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB60	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB61	het	het	het
CB62	het	het	het
CB63	hom alt	hom alt	hom alt
CB65	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CB67	het	het	het
CB69	het	het	het
CB70	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CD1	hom ref	het	hom ref
CD2	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CD3	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CD4	het	het	het
CD5	het	het	het
CD6	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CD7	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
CD8	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
(b) Control participants
Position	6:26463432	6:26468098	6:26468317
rsID	rs13195509	rs3734542	rs3734543
NB11	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB13	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB14	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB16	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB19	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB2	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB20	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB21	het	het	het
NB22	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB25	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB28	het	het	het
NB29	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB3	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB30	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB31	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB32	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB34	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB35	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB37	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB38	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB39	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB41	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB42	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB44	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB46	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB47	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB48	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB49	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB5	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB50	het	het	het
NB52	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB56	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB58	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB68	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB69	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB7	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB70	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
NB71	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND1	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND10	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND2	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND5	het	het	het
ND6	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND7	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND8	hom ref	hom ref	hom ref
ND9	hom ref	het	hom ref

Abbreviations: het: heterozygous; hom alt: homozygous for the alternative allele; hom ref: homozygous for the reference allele.

Appendix H. Demographic Data of the Selected UK Biobank Participants

Firstly, the ages at recruitment of the participants were analysed. The distribution of the age at recruitment of neither controls nor of CeD patients followed a normal distribution (Figure A8). The mean age at recruitment for controls was 62, which was significantly higher than that of CeD patients (t = 27.297, df = 3539.3, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶), whose average age at recruitment was 58.

Figure A8. CeD patients were significantly younger than control individuals when they were recruited for the initial UK Biobank study. The distribution of the age at recruitment of (a) 29,762 control participants and (b) 3094 CeD patients from the UK Biobank dataset did not follow a normal distribution. (c) The mean age at recruitment was significantly higher in control individuals (t = 27.297, df = 3539.3, p-value < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶).

Secondly, the sex of CeD and control participants in the UK Biobank was investigated (Figure A9). Interestingly, the proportion of female participants was significantly higher in the CeD group (64.8%, 2005/3094) than in the control group (40.4%, 12 010/29,762) (X-squared = 683.91, df = 1, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶).

Figure A9. A significantly higher proportion of individuals diagnosed with CeD were female participants, compared with the control cohort in the UK Biobank dataset. The sex of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants was analysed from the UK Biobank. The figure shows the (a) number and (b) percentage of each sex for CeD and control participants. The CeD group in the UK Biobank had a significantly higher proportion of female participants (X-squared = 683.91, df = 1, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶).

Thirdly, the ethnic background of the UK Biobank participants was analysed. In both CeD and control groups, the majority of participants had White British backgrounds, at 91.8% (26 850/29,762) and 90.2% (2841/3094), respectively (Figure A10). In both groups, Irish and any other white background were the second and third most frequent ethnic backgrounds, respectively. When the ethnic background of CeD and control participants was compared (X-squared = 42.294, df = 21, p = 0.00384), no significant difference was present after Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (adjusted p > 0.05).

Figure A10. White British was the most common ethnic background in the UK Biobank participants, regardless of CeD status. The ethnic backgrounds of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants were analysed from the UK Biobank. There were no significant differences in the ethnic background of CeD and control participants after Bonferroni correction.

Finally, the dietary web questionnaire answers of CeD and control individuals were examined for any differences between the two groups. GFD was excluded from the statistical analysis of dietary differences between CeD and control individuals in the UK Biobank. Firstly, being on a GFD was one of the exclusion criteria for the control cohort, to exclude potential, undiagnosed CeD cases. Therefore, this diet would have zero occurrences in the control group. Secondly, CeD patients generally follow a GFD, as it is currently the only treatment for CeD [4]. This created a higher occurrence of GFD in CeD patients compared to controls selected from the UK Biobank dataset. The majority of UK Biobank participants did not adhere to any special diet, with 94.7% of controls (28,185/29,762) and 71.2% of CeD patients (2204/3094) reporting no special diet (Figure A11). A low-calorie diet was the most common special diet in controls (3.1%, 926/29,762).

Figure A11. The majority of UK Biobank participants reported no special diet in both control and CeD groups. The diet of 3094 CeD patients and 29,762 control participants was analysed from the UK Biobank. The majority of UK Biobank participants reported no special diet in both control (94.7%, 28,185/29,762) and CeD (71.2%, 2204/3094) groups. When participants following a gluten-free diet were excluded from the analysis, the proportions of participants following each special diet were significantly different between the CeD and control groups (X-squared = 23.303, df = 11, p = 0.01602). This was likely caused by having to exclude patients who followed multiple diets that included a gluten-free diet. Participants on a gluten-free diet were excluded from the control group.

A GFD was the most common special diet in CeD participants of the UK Biobank (22.2%, 686/3094), with an additional 3.6% (112/3094) of patients following a GFD in addition to other special diets. The second and third most common special diet in the CeD group was a combination of a GFD with a low-calorie diet, and a GFD with a lactose-free diet, at 1.5% (45/3094) and 1.3% (40/3094), respectively. When any variation in a GFD was excluded from the CeD group, the most common diet was a low-calorie diet (1.3%, 39/3094). Interestingly, 74.2% (2296/3094) of CeD participants did not follow a diet that excluded gluten.

When excluding a GFD from the analyses, the proportions of participants following the special diets within the control group were significantly different from the CeD group (X-squared = 23.303, df = 11, p = 0.01602). The lactose-free–low-calorie, vegan, lactose-free–low-calorie–vegetarian, lactose-free–vegetarian, and lactose-free–low-calorie–vegan diets were only found in the control group after excluding CeD patients adhering to a GFD. This could be due to CeD patients following the aforementioned diets in addition to being on a GFD (Table A12).

Table A12. The significant difference between the special diets of controls (n = 29,762) and CeD participants not on a gluten-free diet (n = 2296) may stem from CeD patients following multiple diets in addition to following a gluten-free diet.

			Without GFD		With GFD
Diet	N Controls on Diet	% Controls on Diet	N CeD on Diet	% CeD on Diet (Out of 2296)	N CeD on Diet	% CeD on Diet (Out of 3094)
Lactose-free–low calorie	20	0.067	0	0	5	0.162
Vegan	15	0.050	0	0	1	0.032
Lactose-free–low calorie–vegetarian	2	0.007	0	0	1	0.032
Lactose-free–vegetarian	2	0.007	0	0	1	0.032
Lactose-free–low calorie–vegan	1	0.003	0	0	2	0.065

Appendix I. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.2

Table A13. CeD-associated HLA genotypes were found in 92.4% of CeD (n = 3094) and 57.6% of control (n = 29,762) participants from the UK Biobank’s 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset. The HLA genotype of selected participants from the 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset was called using the HLA imputation values provided by the UK Biobank. CeD risk HLA genotypes were significantly more frequent in CeD patients compared to control participants (X-squared = 4062.5, df = 6, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶).

HLA Genotypes	HLA-DQ2.5	HLA-DQ8	HLA-DQ2.2	HLA-DQ2.5 and DQ8	HLA-DQ2.5 and DQ2.2	HLA-DQ8 and DQ2.2	Other
CeD participants	1652	171	199	606	182	50	234
Control participants	6416	4203	4154	895	886	590	12,618

Figure A12. CeD patients (n = 3094) had significantly higher proportions of CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes compared to controls (n = 29,762) in the UK Biobank’s 500,000 genome-wide genotyping dataset. The (a) number and (b) percentage of participants with CeD risk HLA genotypes were significantly more frequent in CeD patients compared to control participants (X-squared = 4062.5, df = 6, p < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶). All participants’ HLA genotypes were called using the HLA imputation values provided by the UK Biobank.

Table A14. Coefficients of the binomial regression model investigating CeD risk HLA genotypes as a predictor variable for CeD status in the UK Biobank dataset. Results of the binomial generalised linear model testing the association between CeD status and CeD risk-associated HLA genotypes in the UK Biobank dataset. Abbreviations: NA: not applicable; ns: not significant.

HLA Genotype	Coefficient Estimate	Standard Error	z Value	p-Value	CeD Risk
HLA-DQ2.2, HLA-DQ2.5	2.649	0.090	29.550	<2 × 10⁻¹⁶	Increase
HLA-DQ2.2, HLA-DQ8	0.570	0.164	3.474	5.13 × 10⁻⁴	Increase
HLA-DQ2.5	1.682	0.078	21.662	<2 × 10⁻¹⁶	Increase
HLA-DQ2.5, HLA-DQ8	1.456	0.109	13.352	<2 × 10⁻¹⁶	Increase
HLA-DQ8	−0.163	0.107	−1.533	0.125	ns
Other HLA genotype	−0.949	0.098	−9.677	<2 × 10⁻¹⁶	Decrease
Constant	−3.039	0.073	−41.872	<2 × 10⁻¹⁶	NA

Table A15. Single-variant analysis of butyrophilin SNPs and CeD status without taking the HLA loci into account using the UK Biobank dataset. SNPs significantly associated with CeD status are in bold. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP Name	Gene	OR	Upper	Lower	Adjusted p-Value	ln(OR)
rs10484441_G	BTN2A1	1.138386	1.249955	1.038835	0.60789	0.129612
rs12660069_C	BTN2A1	1.106915	1.299592	0.948994	1	0.101577
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	0.397002	0.424644	0.371261	4.67 × 10⁻¹⁵⁸	−0.92381
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	0.424358	0.45231	0.398239	1.61 × 10⁻¹⁵¹	−0.85718
rs13437351_G	BTN2A1	1.485538	1.91326	1.176198	0.14151	0.395777
rs1407045_A	BTN2A1	1.314112	1.385827	1.246309	6.07 × 10⁻²²	0.273161
rs142951857_A	BTN2A1	1.391065	3.107641	0.723169	1	0.33007
rs143104579_G	BTN2A1	1.14068	1.405753	0.935552	1	0.131625
rs146399224_T	BTN2A1	10963.24	NA	0.003938	1	9.302303
rs148111655_G	BTN2A1	1.130613	2.537072	0.583563	1	0.12276
rs2273558_A	BTN2A1	0.673125	0.711994	0.636428	1.69 × 10⁻⁴¹	−0.39582
rs2893856_T	BTN2A1	0.839708	0.911101	0.772766	0.0032259	−0.1747
rs2893857_C	BTN2A1	1.142895	1.255236	1.042695	0.48083	0.133565
rs3734539_C	BTN2A1	4032.285	NA	0.007	1	8.302088
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	0.425283	0.453292	0.39911	8.59 × 10⁻¹⁵¹	−0.855
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	0.430012	0.458993	0.402974	1.59 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰	−0.84394
rs3799380_T	BTN2A1	0.577632	0.611726	0.545555	8.59 × 10⁻⁷⁷	−0.54882
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	0.54644	0.579504	0.515375	9.70 × 10⁻⁸⁹	−0.60433
rs6456724_T	BTN2A1	0.838697	0.91004	0.771803	0.00287	−0.17591
rs6907857_T	BTN2A1	1.433106	1.834039	1.140956	0.29414	0.359844
rs6911470_C	BTN2A1	1.472809	1.963726	1.132407	0.57829	0.387171
rs6929846_T	BTN2A1	0.813898	0.875261	0.756001	3.60 × 10⁻⁶	−0.20592
rs7773913_C	BTN2A1	1.433061	1.833981	1.14092	0.29439	0.359813
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	0.548927	0.582092	0.517765	1.15 × 10⁻⁸⁷	−0.59979
rs77870445_T	BTN2A1	1.219723	1.609943	0.942473	1	0.198624
rs9348718_A	BTN2A1	1.267016	1.454243	1.109411	0.06114	0.236664
rs9358943_C	BTN2A1	1.768069	31.86429	0.363137	1	0.569888
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	0.546443	0.579355	0.515512	1.55 × 10⁻⁸⁹	−0.60432
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	0.54552	0.578367	0.514649	4.37 × 10⁻⁹⁰	−0.60602
rs9461254_G	BTN2A1	1.464419	1.953756	1.125151	0.66799	0.381458
rs10456045_G	BTN3A1	0.638826	0.674371	0.605202	2.97 × 10⁻⁵⁷	−0.44812
rs10807008_G	BTN3A1	1.091584	1.192289	1.001092	1	0.087629
rs12200782_C	BTN3A1	1.138999	1.250121	1.039809	0.56581	0.13015
rs12207930_C	BTN3A1	1.147602	1.241418	1.062201	0.05418	0.137674
rs12208447_C	BTN3A1	1.284779	1.624554	1.030908	1	0.250586
rs12214924_T	BTN3A1	1.147514	1.241076	1.062324	0.05283	0.137597
rs143476765_A	BTN3A1	1.108868	4.616795	0.396888	1	0.10334
rs144114619_T	BTN3A1	1.212854	2.147941	0.740604	1	0.192976
rs145059723_A	BTN3A1	1.412767	4.034311	0.629895	1	0.34555
rs1741738_A	BTN3A1	1.144367	1.242176	1.05573	0.11623	0.134851
rs17610161_G	BTN3A1	1.097034	1.199223	1.005306	1	0.09261
rs1796520_C	BTN3A1	0.758646	0.800004	0.719297	2.40 × 10⁻²²	−0.27622
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	0.585559	0.61957	0.553499	2.92 × 10⁻⁷⁵	−0.53519
rs3857549_C	BTN3A1	1.247408	1.401099	1.114594	0.01526	0.221068
rs3902051_A	BTN3A1	1.090365	1.187959	1.002366	1	0.086513
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	0.396746	0.423498	0.37178	2.12 × 10⁻¹⁶⁸	−0.92446
rs4609015_T	BTN3A1	1.151594	1.245578	1.066033	0.03817	0.141147
rs4712990_C	BTN3A1	1.101764	1.203269	1.010539	1	0.096912
rs55676749_T	BTN3A1	1.13993	1.38368	0.948273	1	0.130967
rs56161420_G	BTN3A1	1.138909	1.230815	1.055142	0.09381	0.130071
rs6900725_T	BTN3A1	1.149401	1.242804	1.064341	0.04333	0.139241
rs6912853_C	BTN3A1	1.16488	1.257236	1.080577	0.00785	0.152618
rs6920986_C	BTN3A1	1.148238	1.241884	1.062975	0.04995	0.138228
rs6921148_T	BTN3A1	1.165176	1.411589	0.971033	1	0.152872
rs742090_A	BTN3A1	0.759078	0.800536	0.719639	3.58 × 10⁻²²	−0.27565
rs7770214_G	BTN3A1	1.145779	1.239155	1.060758	0.06048	0.136085
rs80153343_G	BTN3A1	1.136899	1.439622	0.910733	1	0.128305
rs11758089_T	BTN3A2	1.192878	1.288514	1.105674	0.00063	0.176369
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	0.445307	0.474099	0.41837	6.72 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰	−0.80899
rs12194095_C	BTN3A2	1.118798	1.235914	1.015164	1	0.112255
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	0.67037	0.706851	0.635751	1.76 × 10⁻⁴⁷	−0.39993
rs12205731_G	BTN3A2	1.114755	1.232063	1.011029	1	0.108634
rs144016445_G	BTN3A2	81101.36	NA	217.0251	1	11.30346
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	0.445697	0.474831	0.418455	1.17 × 10⁻¹³⁶	−0.80811
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	0.44537	0.474171	0.418426	8.23 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰	−0.80885
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	0.63289	0.668226	0.599467	2.87 × 10⁻⁵⁹	−0.45746
rs2073526_G	BTN3A2	0.74435	0.785579	0.705115	9.15 × 10⁻²⁵	−0.29524
rs35183513_G	BTN3A2	1.102861	1.203659	1.012184	1	0.097908
rs58367598_T	BTN3A2	1.234256	1.449383	1.057523	0.89091	0.210469
rs7765566_G	BTN3A2	1.269787	1.499163	1.083157	0.39847	0.23885
rs9104_G	BTN3A2	1.092904	1.187567	1.007255	1	0.088838
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	0.447824	0.476845	0.420678	2.34 × 10⁻¹³⁷	−0.80335
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	0.447682	0.47666	0.420575	8.85 × 10⁻¹³⁸	−0.80367
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	0.448449	0.477474	0.421299	3.19 × 10⁻¹³⁷	−0.80196
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	0.447843	0.476903	0.420662	5.37 × 10⁻¹³⁷	−0.80331
rs9379861_G	BTN3A2	1.225507	1.619363	0.945713	1	0.203355
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	0.442958	0.471602	0.416159	1.07 × 10⁻¹⁴¹	−0.81428
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	0.443419	0.47214	0.416551	6.99 × 10⁻¹⁴¹	−0.81324
rs186813312_C	BTNL3	0.103966	NA	NA	NA	−2.26369
rs199970076_G	BTNL3	0.544013	10.42476	0.087697	1	−0.60878
rs201534771_G	BTNL3	0.108957	NA	NA	NA	−2.2168
rs201813197_C	BTNL3	1.141842	4.74926	0.409599	1	0.132642
rs35157246_C	BTNL3	1.069831	1.242264	0.926052	1	0.067501
rs4700774_G	BTNL3	0.943446	0.999778	0.89061	1	−0.05822
rs59220426_C	BTNL3	1.006054	1.132599	0.896669	1	0.006036
rs73815153_G	BTNL3	1.009988	1.138564	0.899028	1	0.009938
rs7713324_A	BTNL3	1.004294	1.130736	0.895001	1	0.004284
rs7726604_C	BTNL3	1.004751	1.13121	0.895444	1	0.00474
rs112469887_G	BTNL8	1.084234	1.330225	0.893133	1	0.080874
rs113071395_G	BTNL8	0.867372	1.006007	0.751681	1	−0.14229
rs113534626_A	BTNL8	1.019956	1.206531	0.868252	1	0.019759
rs141492316_T	BTNL8	0.891806	1.095588	0.733483	1	−0.11451
rs145199317_A	BTNL8	0.907765	1.254932	0.673198	1	−0.09677
rs151174174_C	BTNL8	0.770441	0.932722	0.641625	0.63031	−0.26079
rs17704291_C	BTNL8	0.940216	0.996283	0.88763	1	−0.06165
rs200633883_C	BTNL8	0.311552	1.114968	0.108457	1	−1.16619
rs201214790_T	BTNL8	4044.713	NA	1.08 × 10⁻⁷	1	8.305166
rs201891387_G	BTNL8	0.62355	2.663098	0.210953	1	−0.47233
rs2276995_A	BTNL8	0.983681	1.038422	0.931987	1	−0.01645
rs2619739_C	BTNL8	1.101246	1.212402	1.002386	1	0.096442
rs7724813_G	BTNL8	1.078621	1.169543	0.996169	1	0.075683

Table A16. SNP and allele count data for the significant SNPs from the non-HLA model. These SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status in single-variant testing of the UK Biobank dataset. The SNPs in bold remained significantly associated with CeD status in the binomial regression models that took the HLA genotype of individuals into account.

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	Number of SNPs in Control	Number of SNPs in CeD	Total Allele Count in Control	Total allele Count in CeD	Total Number of SNPs in the UK Biobank	Total Allele Count in UK Biobank
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	52,060	4631	58,392	6028	56,691	64,420
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	52,271	4654	59,474	6176	56,925	65,650
rs1407045_A	BTN2A1	30,596	3603	59,306	6172	34,199	65,478
rs2273558_A	BTN2A1	34,599	3248	51,134	5570	37,847	56,704
rs2893856_T	BTN2A1	7815	697	59,452	6182	8512	65,634
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	52,209	4656	59,432	6180	56,865	65,612
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	52,002	4644	59,146	6114	56,646	65,260
rs3799380_T	BTN2A1	46,887	4213	59,354	6164	51,100	65,518
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	47,941	4295	59,422	6170	52,236	65,592
rs6456724_T	BTN2A1	7813	696	59,418	6178	8509	65,596
rs6929846_T	BTN2A1	10,355	903	59,460	6180	11,258	65,640
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	47,953	4289	59,472	6162	52,242	65,634
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	47,929	4294	59,462	6182	52,223	65,644
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	47,944	4292	59,478	6182	52,236	65,660
rs10456045_G	BTN3A1	41,458	3680	59,434	6174	45,138	65,608
rs1796520_C	BTN3A1	28,075	2504	59,240	6176	30,579	65,416
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	45,113	4017	59,206	6152	49,130	65,358
rs3857549_C	BTN3A1	55,572	5848	59,430	6170	61,420	65,600
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	52,985	4720	59,430	6178	57,705	65,608
rs4609015_T	BTN3A1	50,759	5371	59,452	6170	56,130	65,622
rs6900725_T	BTN3A1	50,682	5378	59,392	6182	56,060	65,574
rs6912853_C	BTN3A1	50,145	5329	59,434	6176	55,474	65,610
rs6920986_C	BTN3A1	50,787	5381	59,464	6182	56,168	65,646
rs742090_A	BTN3A1	28,172	2506	59,438	6174	30,678	65,612
rs11758089_T	BTN3A2	50,176	5354	59,432	6182	55,530	65,614
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	51,604	4597	59,488	6182	56,201	65,670
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	36,321	3178	59,396	6178	39,499	65,574
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	50,506	4497	58,436	6074	55,003	64,510
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	51,551	4590	59,448	6176	56,141	65,624
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	41,492	3674	59,442	6174	45,166	65,616
rs2073526_G	BTN3A2	26,272	2288	59,434	6176	28,560	65,610
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	51,477	4591	59,412	6174	56,068	65,586
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	51,458	4579	59,392	6162	56,037	65,554
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	51,474	4586	59,422	6170	56,060	65,592
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	51,530	4595	59,452	6174	56,125	65,626
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	51,601	4590	59,472	6178	56,191	65,650
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	51,581	4594	59,456	6180	56,175	65,636

Table A17. The genotypes and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of the significant SNPs in the control participants from the non-HLA model. The Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of each SNP in the control group was assessed using the HardyWeinberg R package [94]. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	Number of Controls Homozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Controls Heterozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Control Individuals Without the Reference Allele	Allele Freq in Controls	HWE Adjusted p-Value
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	23,188	5684	324	0.892	1
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	23,018	6235	484	0.879	0.340
rs1407045_A	BTN2A1	7951	14,694	7008	0.516	1
rs2273558_A	BTN2A1	11,804	10,991	2772	0.677	0.179
rs2893856_T	BTN2A1	514	6787	22,425	0.869	1
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	22,978	6253	485	0.878	1
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	22,866	6270	437	0.879	1
rs3799380_T	BTN2A1	18,595	9697	1385	0.790	1
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	19,326	9289	1096	0.807	1
rs6456724_T	BTN2A1	515	6783	22,411	0.869	1
rs6929846_T	BTN2A1	971	8413	20,346	0.826	1
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	19,333	9287	1116	0.806	1
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	19,319	9291	1121	0.806	1
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	19,326	9292	1121	0.806	1
rs10456045_G	BTN3A1	14,460	12,538	2719	0.698	1
rs1796520_C	BTN3A1	6734	14,607	8279	0.526	1
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	17,152	10,809	1642	0.762	1
rs3857549_C	BTN3A1	26,084	3404	227	0.935	1
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	23,662	5661	392	0.892	1
rs4609015_T	BTN3A1	21,657	7445	624	0.854	1
rs6900725_T	BTN3A1	21,625	7432	639	0.853	1
rs6912853_C	BTN3A1	21,168	7809	740	0.844	1
rs6920986_C	BTN3A1	21,672	7443	617	0.854	1
rs742090_A	BTN3A1	6727	14,718	8274	0.526	1
rs11758089_T	BTN3A2	21,182	7812	722	0.844	1
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	22,420	6764	560	0.867	1
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	11,047	14,227	4424	0.612	1
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	21,828	6850	540	0.864	1
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	22,388	6775	561	0.867	1
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	14,433	12,626	2662	0.698	1
rs2073526_G	BTN3A2	5874	14,524	9319	0.558	1
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	22,330	6817	559	0.866	1
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	22,327	6804	565	0.866	1
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	22,329	6816	566	0.866	1
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	22,358	6814	554	0.867	1
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	22,422	6757	557	0.868	1
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	22,404	6773	551	0.868	1

Table A18. Single-variant analysis of butyrophilin SNPs and CeD status in binomial regression models that took the HLA loci into account using the UK Biobank dataset. SNPs significantly associated with CeD status are in bold. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP Name	Gene	OR	Upper	Lower	Adjusted p-Value	ln(OR)
rs10484441_G	BTN2A1	0.979307	1.082186	0.887707	1	−0.02091
rs12660069_C	BTN2A1	0.987937	1.171444	0.837975	1	−0.01214
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	0.812801	0.876887	0.753657	8.15 × 10⁻⁶	−0.20727
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	0.824983	0.886694	0.767819	1.62 × 10⁻⁵	−0.19239
rs13437351_G	BTN2A1	1.359939	1.781839	1.056236	1	0.30744
rs1407045_A	BTN2A1	1.061681	1.125065	1.001972	1	0.059854
rs142951857_A	BTN2A1	1.189393	2.744421	0.589877	1	0.173443
rs143104579_G	BTN2A1	1.045598	1.306706	0.844534	1	0.044589
rs146399224_T	BTN2A1	2678.29	NA	0.001107	1	7.892934
rs148111655_G	BTN2A1	1.06888	2.495456	0.522042	1	0.066611
rs2273558_A	BTN2A1	0.924046	0.983637	0.868186	1	−0.07899
rs2893856_T	BTN2A1	0.978844	1.068109	0.895906	1	−0.02138
rs2893857_C	BTN2A1	0.983276	1.0868	0.891136	1	−0.01687
rs3734539_C	BTN2A1	12320.17	NA	2.26 × 10⁻⁵	1	9.418993
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	0.828358	0.890318	0.770964	2.94 × 10⁻⁵	−0.18831
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	0.845824	0.910556	0.785966	0.000823	−0.16744
rs3799380_T	BTN2A1	0.906299	0.966317	0.850232	0.260718	−0.09839
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	0.889118	0.949206	0.833053	0.042016	−0.11753
rs6456724_T	BTN2A1	0.975504	1.064451	0.892856	1	−0.0248
rs6907857_T	BTN2A1	1.296362	1.68837	1.012123	1	0.259562
rs6911470_C	BTN2A1	1.225626	1.666065	0.92177	1	0.203452
rs6929846_T	BTN2A1	0.956691	1.034347	0.884033	1	−0.04427
rs7773913_C	BTN2A1	1.29982	1.692843	1.014844	1	0.262226
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	0.892443	0.95269	0.83623	0.062934	−0.11379
rs77870445_T	BTN2A1	0.971098	1.300178	0.738108	1	−0.02933
rs9348718_A	BTN2A1	1.100624	1.274443	0.954703	1	0.095877
rs9358943_C	BTN2A1	0.455962	8.266602	0.091903	1	−0.78535
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	0.888825	0.948639	0.833001	0.038293	−0.11786
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	0.886765	0.946407	0.831099	0.02906	−0.12018
rs9461254_G	BTN2A1	1.206876	1.642976	0.90642	1	0.188035
rs10456045_G	BTN3A1	0.918688	0.975087	0.865666	0.527112	−0.08481
rs10807008_G	BTN3A1	0.94089	1.033981	0.857412	1	−0.06093
rs12200782_C	BTN3A1	0.987553	1.090084	0.896183	1	−0.01253
rs12207930_C	BTN3A1	0.994811	1.081946	0.91566	1	−0.0052
rs12208447_C	BTN3A1	0.971864	1.246094	0.767755	1	−0.02854
rs12214924_T	BTN3A1	0.997777	1.08479	0.918712	1	−0.00223
rs143476765_A	BTN3A1	0.541997	2.391824	0.175983	1	−0.61249
rs144114619_T	BTN3A1	0.937876	1.708275	0.552209	1	−0.06414
rs145059723_A	BTN3A1	0.851224	2.534279	0.356178	1	−0.16108
rs1741738_A	BTN3A1	1.055187	1.152999	0.966854	1	0.053718
rs17610161_G	BTN3A1	0.948685	1.04337	0.863865	1	−0.05268
rs1796520_C	BTN3A1	0.925332	0.980491	0.873166	0.877114	−0.0776
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	0.866517	0.922476	0.814111	0.000704	−0.14327
rs3857549_C	BTN3A1	1.20727	1.366146	1.0703	0.249929	0.188361
rs3902051_A	BTN3A1	0.947893	1.038919	0.865991	1	−0.05351
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	0.806793	0.868508	0.749711	1.06 × 10⁻⁶	−0.21469
rs4609015_T	BTN3A1	0.999771	1.087084	0.920447	1	−0.00023
rs4712990_C	BTN3A1	0.953022	1.047148	0.8686	1	−0.04812
rs55676749_T	BTN3A1	1.055136	1.295119	0.867029	1	0.05367
rs56161420_G	BTN3A1	1.003319	1.090026	0.92446	1	0.003313
rs6900725_T	BTN3A1	0.998519	1.085343	0.919613	1	−0.00148
rs6912853_C	BTN3A1	1.060948	1.150125	0.979684	1	0.059162
rs6920986_C	BTN3A1	0.997232	1.08425	0.918167	1	−0.00277
rs6921148_T	BTN3A1	1.075901	1.317605	0.885986	1	0.073159
rs742090_A	BTN3A1	0.927391	0.982792	0.875004	1	−0.07538
rs7770214_G	BTN3A1	0.992737	1.079363	0.914026	1	−0.00729
rs80153343_G	BTN3A1	1.144379	1.465945	0.904679	1	0.134862
rs11758089_T	BTN3A2	1.093163	1.188249	1.00675	1	0.089075
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	0.820862	0.880647	0.765377	3.50 × 10⁻⁶	−0.1974
rs12194095_C	BTN3A2	0.971352	1.079478	0.875824	1	−0.02907
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	0.884297	0.93714	0.834446	0.003312	−0.12296
rs12205731_G	BTN3A2	0.970415	1.079025	0.874528	1	−0.03003
rs144016445_G	BTN3A2	38750.66	NA	151.7424	1	10.5649
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	0.816781	0.87678	0.761121	2.06 × 10⁻⁶	−0.20238
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	0.820729	0.880499	0.765255	3.40 × 10⁻⁶	−0.19756
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	0.896055	0.951463	0.84398	0.033488	−0.10975
rs2073526_G	BTN3A2	0.925312	0.980986	0.872648	0.940603	−0.07762
rs35183513_G	BTN3A2	0.951537	1.044843	0.867784	1	−0.04968
rs58367598_T	BTN3A2	1.089293	1.290835	0.924221	1	0.085529
rs7765566_G	BTN3A2	1.145085	1.363507	0.967785	1	0.135479
rs9104_G	BTN3A2	0.945089	1.032973	0.86575	1	−0.05648
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	0.824601	0.884767	0.76877	7.53 × 10⁻⁶	−0.19286
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	0.82361	0.883636	0.767905	6.04 × 10⁻⁶	−0.19406
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	0.825671	0.885867	0.769811	8.99 × 10⁻⁶	−0.19156
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	0.824802	0.885058	0.768893	8.10 × 10⁻⁶	−0.19261
rs9379861_G	BTN3A2	1.039521	1.399242	0.785634	1	0.03876
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	0.814157	0.873453	0.759123	9.27 × 10⁻⁷	−0.2056
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	0.818022	0.877663	0.762671	2.08 × 10⁻⁶	−0.20087
rs186813312_C	BTNL3	0.387143	NA	NA	NA	−0.94896
rs199970076_G	BTNL3	0.890096	19.02105	0.105649	1	−0.11643
rs201534771_G	BTNL3	0.373628	NA	NA	NA	−0.98449
rs201813197_C	BTNL3	0.906025	3.98319	0.295074	1	−0.09869
rs35157246_C	BTNL3	1.061269	1.243749	0.909647	1	0.059466
rs4700774_G	BTNL3	0.953121	1.014114	0.896074	1	−0.04801
rs59220426_C	BTNL3	0.964396	1.094724	0.852069	1	−0.03625
rs73815153_G	BTNL3	0.979858	1.113514	0.864825	1	−0.02035
rs7713324_A	BTNL3	0.962434	1.092563	0.850278	1	−0.03829
rs7726604_C	BTNL3	0.963325	1.093541	0.851096	1	−0.03736
rs112469887_G	BTNL8	1.04641	1.299262	0.850631	1	0.045365
rs113071395_G	BTNL8	0.908391	1.065436	0.777899	1	−0.09608
rs113534626_A	BTNL8	1.008072	1.204841	0.848563	1	0.00804
rs141492316_T	BTNL8	0.930335	1.160408	0.752616	1	−0.07221
rs145199317_A	BTNL8	0.884686	1.250181	0.639686	1	−0.12252
rs151174174_C	BTNL8	0.828069	1.016412	0.679378	1	−0.18866
rs17704291_C	BTNL8	0.952291	1.013025	0.895481	1	−0.04888
rs200633883_C	BTNL8	0.419543	1.675223	0.123618	1	−0.86859
rs201214790_T	BTNL8	740.6942	NA	1.97 × 10⁻⁸	1	6.607588
rs201891387_G	BTNL8	0.495896	2.269513	0.147322	1	−0.70139
rs2276995_A	BTNL8	0.984754	1.043162	0.929755	1	−0.01536
rs2619739_C	BTNL8	1.078254	1.194765	0.974928	1	0.075343
rs7724813_G	BTNL8	1.054983	1.150319	0.968751	1	0.053525

Table A19. The genotypes and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of the significant SNPs in the control participants from the binomial models that took the HLA loci into account. The Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of each SNP in the control group was assessed using the HardyWeinberg R package [94]. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	Number of Controls Homozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Controls Heterozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Control Individuals Without the Reference Allele	Allele Freq in Controls	HWE Adjusted p-Value
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	23,188	5684	324	0.892	1
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	23,018	6235	484	0.879	0.184
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	22,978	6253	485	0.878	0.246
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	22,866	6270	437	0.879	1
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	19,326	9289	1096	0.807	1
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	19,319	9291	1121	0.806	1
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	19,326	9292	1121	0.806	1
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	17,152	10,809	1642	0.762	1
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	23,662	5661	392	0.892	1
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	22,420	6764	560	0.867	1
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	11,047	14,227	4424	0.612	1
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	21,828	6850	540	0.864	1
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	22,388	6775	561	0.867	1
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	14,433	12,626	2662	0.698	1
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	22,330	6817	559	0.866	1
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	22,327	6804	565	0.866	1
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	22,329	6816	566	0.866	1
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	22,358	6814	554	0.867	1
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	22,422	6757	557	0.868	1
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	22,404	6773	551	0.868	1

Table A20. Single-variant analysis of butyrophilin SNPs and CeD status using binomial regression models on the HLA-DQ2.5-matched case-control cohort of the UK Biobank database. SNPs significantly associated with CeD status are in bold. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP Name	Gene	OR	Upper	Lower	Adjusted p-Value	ln(OR)
rs10484441_G	BTN2A1	1.026879	1.182655	0.894513	1	0.026524
rs12660069_C	BTN2A1	0.954382	1.207579	0.761803	1	−0.04669
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	0.757206	0.831328	0.689864	5.10 × 10⁻⁷	−0.27812
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	0.77459	0.846648	0.708837	1.75 × 10⁻⁶	−0.25542
rs13437351_G	BTN2A1	1.400742	2.090478	0.973921	1	0.337002
rs1407045_A	BTN2A1	1.080193	1.170756	0.996977	1	0.07714
rs142951857_A	BTN2A1	1.287748	4.431929	0.486536	1	0.252895
rs143104579_G	BTN2A1	1.331616	1.885897	0.963027	1	0.286393
rs146399224_T	BTN2A1	0.25741	NA	NA	NA	−1.35708
rs148111655_G	BTN2A1	0.944297	4.178925	0.294481	1	−0.05731
rs2273558_A	BTN2A1	0.892885	0.971388	0.820718	0.848901	−0.1133
rs2893856_T	BTN2A1	0.927404	1.048809	0.818043	1	−0.07537
rs2893857_C	BTN2A1	1.040565	1.199279	0.905854	1	0.039764
rs3734539_C	BTN2A1	27166.76	NA	9.99 × 10⁻¹⁴	1	10.20975
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	0.77697	0.849181	0.711073	2.52 × 10⁻⁶	−0.25235
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	0.792317	0.867952	0.723463	5.43 × 10⁻⁵	−0.23279
rs3799380_T	BTN2A1	0.869548	0.945573	0.799787	0.107572	−0.13978
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	0.852755	0.928301	0.783513	0.02331	−0.15928
rs6456724_T	BTN2A1	0.924581	1.045479	0.815654	1	−0.07841
rs6907857_T	BTN2A1	1.401132	2.091061	0.974192	1	0.33728
rs6911470_C	BTN2A1	1.565436	2.679723	0.978088	1	0.448164
rs6929846_T	BTN2A1	0.870873	0.973832	0.777255	1	−0.13826
rs7773913_C	BTN2A1	1.408409	2.10183	0.979326	1	0.34246
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	0.854233	0.929778	0.784985	0.026611	−0.15755
rs77870445_T	BTN2A1	1.022451	1.530146	0.704151	1	0.022203
rs9348718_A	BTN2A1	1.308813	1.636793	1.057849	1	0.26912
rs9358943_C	BTN2A1	0.257602	NA	NA	NA	−1.35634
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	0.850121	0.924966	0.781482	0.016059	−0.16238
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	0.847905	0.922571	0.77943	0.012607	−0.16499
rs9461254_G	BTN2A1	1.565001	2.678973	0.977818	1	0.447886
rs10456045_G	BTN3A1	0.872024	0.944198	0.805371	0.074344	−0.13694
rs10807008_G	BTN3A1	0.988264	1.128972	0.867514	1	−0.01181
rs12200782_C	BTN3A1	0.969241	1.112166	0.84719	1	−0.03124
rs12207930_C	BTN3A1	1.059407	1.19361	0.94228	1	0.05771
rs12208447_C	BTN3A1	1.183033	1.71485	0.838562	1	0.168081
rs12214924_T	BTN3A1	1.059617	1.192843	0.943249	1	0.057908
rs143476765_A	BTN3A1	0.385935	2.931895	0.063895	1	−0.95209
rs144114619_T	BTN3A1	0.800306	1.80142	0.391948	1	−0.22276
rs145059723_A	BTN3A1	1.546934	29.22579	0.264012	1	0.436275
rs1741738_A	BTN3A1	1.126398	1.288465	0.987689	1	0.119025
rs17610161_G	BTN3A1	0.999336	1.142965	0.876283	1	−0.00066
rs1796520_C	BTN3A1	0.901974	0.977599	0.831877	1	−0.10317
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	0.829346	0.900397	0.763968	0.00081	−0.18712
rs3857549_C	BTN3A1	1.307821	1.557482	1.105147	0.217446	0.268362
rs3902051_A	BTN3A1	0.979611	1.113404	0.864043	1	−0.0206
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	0.753767	0.824792	0.68903	7.25 × 10⁻⁸	−0.28267
rs4609015_T	BTN3A1	1.055122	1.187787	0.939241	1	0.053657
rs4712990_C	BTN3A1	1.009758	1.153906	0.886126	1	0.00971
rs55676749_T	BTN3A1	1.356015	1.867802	1.007293	1	0.30455
rs56161420_G	BTN3A1	1.060354	1.193295	0.944184	1	0.058603
rs6900725_T	BTN3A1	1.061349	1.194313	0.945175	1	0.059541
rs6912853_C	BTN3A1	1.087423	1.216203	0.974151	1	0.08381
rs6920986_C	BTN3A1	1.062734	1.196651	0.9458	1	0.060845
rs6921148_T	BTN3A1	1.340282	1.834522	1.000858	1	0.29288
rs742090_A	BTN3A1	0.903554	0.979423	0.833241	1	−0.10142
rs7770214_G	BTN3A1	1.053031	1.185369	0.937421	1	0.051673
rs80153343_G	BTN3A1	0.979216	1.347528	0.724804	1	−0.021
rs11758089_T	BTN3A2	1.191327	1.352007	1.052499	0.618146	0.175068
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	0.766628	0.836949	0.702371	2.82 × 10⁻⁷	−0.26575
rs12194095_C	BTN3A2	0.943672	1.092386	0.818034	1	−0.05798
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	0.842231	0.911373	0.77819	0.002057	−0.1717
rs12205731_G	BTN3A2	0.933998	1.081909	0.809117	1	−0.06828
rs144016445_G	BTN3A2	73914.07	NA	1.75 × 10⁻⁶	1	11.21066
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	0.764904	0.835801	0.700168	2.99 × 10⁻⁷	−0.268
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	0.76816	0.838582	0.70381	3.63 × 10⁻⁷	−0.26376
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	0.860169	0.932012	0.793857	0.023502	−0.15063
rs2073526_G	BTN3A2	0.90252	0.979048	0.831612	1	−0.10256
rs35183513_G	BTN3A2	1.000653	1.140268	0.880486	1	0.000652
rs58367598_T	BTN3A2	1.153984	1.470445	0.915197	1	0.143221
rs7765566_G	BTN3A2	1.171754	1.497136	0.928192	1	0.158502
rs9104_G	BTN3A2	1.010674	1.145196	0.894134	1	0.010617
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	0.772404	0.843549	0.707423	8.85 × 10⁻⁷	−0.25825
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	0.771306	0.842174	0.706564	6.76 × 10⁻⁷	−0.25967
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	0.774407	0.845625	0.709352	1.18 × 10⁻⁶	−0.25566
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	0.770242	0.841254	0.705384	6.31 × 10⁻⁷	−0.26105
rs9379861_G	BTN3A2	0.987622	1.586757	0.639198	1	−0.01246
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	0.760996	0.830868	0.697149	1.06 × 10⁻⁷	−0.27313
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	0.765074	0.835356	0.700859	2.25 × 10⁻⁷	−0.26778
rs186813312_C	BTNL3	0.257602	NA	NA	NA	−1.35634
rs199970076_G	BTNL3	0.272926	6.904492	0.010788	1	−1.29856
rs201534771_G	BTNL3	0.273671	NA	NA	NA	−1.29583
rs201813197_C	BTNL3	0.514697	3.715301	0.100372	1	−0.66418
rs35157246_C	BTNL3	1.03751	1.287524	0.842551	1	0.036824
rs4700774_G	BTNL3	0.978837	1.065525	0.899706	1	−0.02139
rs59220426_C	BTNL3	1.017762	1.216405	0.856252	1	0.017606
rs73815153_G	BTNL3	1.02474	1.225825	0.861442	1	0.024438
rs7713324_A	BTNL3	1.018119	1.216841	0.856546	1	0.017957
rs7726604_C	BTNL3	1.020763	1.219953	0.85881	1	0.02055
rs112469887_G	BTNL8	1.002918	1.333287	0.765187	1	0.002914
rs113071395_G	BTNL8	0.93155	1.162634	0.752338	1	−0.07091
rs113534626_A	BTNL8	0.9371	1.185234	0.747845	1	−0.06496
rs141492316_T	BTNL8	0.963798	1.314391	0.718601	1	−0.03687
rs145199317_A	BTNL8	1.12544	1.912393	0.697448	1	0.118174
rs151174174_C	BTNL8	0.729764	0.953457	0.564223	1	−0.31503
rs17704291_C	BTNL8	0.969451	1.055155	0.891212	1	−0.03103
rs200633883_C	BTNL8	0.171372	1.035119	0.022558	1	−1.76392
rs201214790_T	BTNL8	0.256248	NA	NA	NA	−1.36161
rs201891387_G	BTNL8	0.171476	1.035747	0.022572	1	−1.76331
rs2276995_A	BTNL8	1.002057	1.084332	0.926283	1	0.002055
rs2619739_C	BTNL8	0.966968	1.107812	0.846435	1	−0.03359
rs7724813_G	BTNL8	1.041603	1.171988	0.927725	1	0.040761

Table A21. SNP and allele count of the SNPs significantly associated with CeD in UK Biobank participants with the HLA-DQ2.5 genotype. These SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status in the HLA-DQ2.5-matched single-variant testing of the UK Biobank dataset.

Participants with the HLA-DQ2.5 Genotype
SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	Number of SNPs in Controls with HLA-DQ2.5	Number of SNPs in CeD with HLA-DQ2.5	Total Allele count in Control with HLA-DQ2.5	Total Allele Count in CeD with HLA-DQ2.5	Total Number of SNPs in the UK Biobank with HLA-DQ2.5	Total Allele Count in UK Biobank with HLA-DQ2.5
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	9398	2256	12,514	3206	11,654	15,720
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	9408	2265	12,820	3296	11,673	16,116
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	9386	2266	12,808	3300	11,652	16,108
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	9366	2265	12,722	3258	11,631	15,980
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	8609	2107	12,798	3290	10,716	16,088
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	8606	2106	12,804	3290	10,712	16,094
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	8603	2108	12,818	3304	10,711	16,122
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	8607	2106	12,818	3302	10,713	16,120
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	8129	1959	12,768	3286	10,088	16,054
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	9577	2298	12,820	3298	11,875	16,118
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	9347	2242	12,826	3302	11,589	16,128
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	6396	1515	12,802	3300	7911	16,102
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	9135	2197	12,574	3248	11,332	15,822
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	9330	2242	12,808	3302	11,572	16,110
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	7353	1777	12,816	3294	9130	16,110
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	9333	2240	12,810	3292	11,573	16,102
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	9324	2239	12,802	3294	11,563	16,096
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	9321	2242	12,804	3296	11,563	16,100
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	9340	2244	12,806	3296	11,584	16,102
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	9345	2237	12,812	3298	11,582	16,110
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	9346	2241	12,818	3300	11,587	16,118

Table A22. The genotypes and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of the significant SNPs in the control participants from the HLA-DQ2.5 matched case-control models. The frequency of all the examined SNPs significantly differed from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. The Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium of each SNP in the control group was assessed using the HardyWeinberg R package [94]. Bonferroni correction was applied due to multiple testing.

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	Number of Controls Homozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Controls Heterozygous for the Reference Allele	Number of Control Individuals Without the Reference Allele	Allele Freq in Controls	HWE Adjusted p-Value
rs13195402_G	BTN2A1	3353	2692	212	0.751	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs13195509_G	BTN2A1	3303	2802	305	0.734	3.26 × 10⁻²⁰
rs3734542_G	BTN2A1	3290	2806	308	0.733	3.69 × 10⁻²⁰
rs3734543_G	BTN2A1	3278	2810	273	0.736	1.35 × 10⁻²⁶
rs56296968_C	BTN2A1	2737	3135	527	0.673	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs7773938_C	BTN2A1	2737	3132	533	0.672	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9358944_A	BTN2A1	2734	3135	540	0.671	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9358945_A	BTN2A1	2737	3133	539	0.671	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs3799378_A	BTN3A1	2446	3237	701	0.637	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs41266839_G	BTN3A1	3429	2719	262	0.747	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs12176317_A	BTN3A2	3267	2813	333	0.729	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs12199613_C	BTN3A2	1505	3386	1510	0.500	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs1977_A	BTN3A2	3172	2791	324	0.726	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs1979_G	BTN3A2	3260	2810	334	0.728	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs1985732_A	BTN3A2	1974	3405	1029	0.574	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9358934_G	BTN3A2	3259	2815	331	0.729	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9379855_T	BTN3A2	3257	2810	334	0.728	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9379858_T	BTN3A2	3253	2815	334	0.728	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9379859_C	BTN3A2	3263	2814	326	0.729	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9393713_G	BTN3A2	3269	2807	330	0.729	2.65 × 10⁻³¹
rs9393714_G	BTN3A2	3267	2812	330	0.729	2.65 × 10⁻³¹

Appendix J. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.3

Table A23. There were no significant differences in the TRGV usage of FFPE CeD (n = 45) and healthy control (n = 108) samples after Bonferroni correction was applied. Raw p-values from Mann–Whitney U (MWU) tests were adjusted using Bonferroni correction to account for false positives due to multiple testing.

	FFPE CeD (n = 45) vs. FFPE Healthy Control (n = 108)
	Raw p-Value (MWU)	Adjusted p-Value
TRGV2	0.775	1
TRGV3	0.411	1
TRGV4	0.812	1
TRGV5	0.906	1
TRGV5P	0.684	1
TRGV7	0.566	1
TRGV8	0.382	1
TRGV9	0.070	0.70
TRGV10	0.248	1
TRGV11	0.025	0.25

Figure A13. The TRGV usage of (a) healthy control (n = 108) and (b) CeD FFPE duodenal samples (n = 45) was not normally distributed in the duodenal samples subjected to TRGV usage analysis.

Figure A14. More than 82% of both healthy control and CeD samples were homozygous for the reference HV4 amino acid sequence in the combined cohort. The HV4 analysis was carried out on a cohort of 238 healthy controls and 141 CeD samples. The homozygous reference HV4 sequence was the most common phenotype in both CeD and healthy control samples. Only 10 healthy control and 3 CeD samples did not have any WT HV4 sequences.

Table A24. There were no significant differences in the HV4 distribution between healthy controls (n = 238) and CeD patients (n = 141). The reference amino acid sequence KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR is noted as WT in the table. Sequences with amino acid substitutions are provided in full. Pairwise Fisher’s exact test with Bonferroni correction was applied on the different HV4 phenotypes in CeD and healthy control patients.

	141 CeD vs. 238 Healthy Control Samples
	Raw p-Values (Fisher)	Adjusted p-Values
WT vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMIL	0.3925	1
WT vs. KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR	0.3392	1
WT vs. KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA	0.3668	1
WT vs. WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR	0.3668	1
WT vs. KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR, WT	1	1
WT vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	0.6258	1
WT vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	0.3668	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR	0.1697	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA	0.4524	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR	0.4524	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	0.4524	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA	0.25	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR	0.25	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	0.5165	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	0.25	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA vs. WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA vs. WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR vs. KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	1	1
WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	1	1
KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR vs. WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	1	1

References

Abadie, V.; Sollid, L.M.; Barreiro, L.B.; Jabri, B. Integration of genetic and immunological insights into a model of celiac disease pathogenesis. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2011, 29, 493–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jabri, B.; Sollid, L.M. Tissue-mediated control of immunopathology in coeliac disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 9, 858–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trier, J.S. Diagnosis of celiac sprue. Gastroenterology 1998, 115, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
NICE. Coeliac Disease: Recognition, Assessment and Management. Available online: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng20/chapter/Recommendations (accessed on 27 November 2020).
Al-Toma, A.; Goerres, M.S.; Meijer, J.W.; Pena, A.S.; Crusius, J.B.; Mulder, C.J. Human leukocyte antigen-DQ2 homozygosity and the development of refractory celiac disease and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2006, 4, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ayesh, B.M.; Zaqout, E.K.; Yassin, M.M. HLA-DQ2 and -DQ8 haplotypes frequency and diagnostic utility in celiac disease patients of Gaza strip, Palestine. Autoimmun Highlights 2017, 8, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Björck, S.; Brundin, C.; Lörinc, E.; Lynch, K.F.; Agardh, D. Screening detects a high proportion of celiac disease in young HLA-genotyped children. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2010, 50, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karell, K.; Louka, A.S.; Moodie, S.J.; Ascher, H.; Clot, F.; Greco, L.; Ciclitira, P.J.; Sollid, L.M.; Partanen, J.; European Genetics Cluster on Celiac, D. HLA types in celiac disease patients not carrying the DQA1*05-DQB1*02 (DQ2) heterodimer: Results from the European Genetics Cluster on Celiac Disease. Hum. Immunol. 2003, 64, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karhus, L.L.; Thuesen, B.H.; Skaaby, T.; Rumessen, J.J.; Linneberg, A. The distribution of HLA DQ2 and DQ8 haplotypes and their association with health indicators in a general Danish population. United Eur. Gastroenterol. 2018, 6, 866–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Murad, H.; Jazairi, B.; Khansaa, I.; Olabi, D.; Khouri, L. HLA-DQ2 and -DQ8 genotype frequency in Syrian celiac disease children: HLA-DQ relative risks evaluation. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018, 18, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sollid, L.M.; Thorsby, E. HLA susceptibility genes in celiac disease: Genetic mapping and role in pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 1993, 105, 910–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sollid, L.M. Molecular basis of celiac disease. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2000, 18, 53–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sollid, L.M.; Markussen, G.; Ek, J.; Gjerde, H.; Vartdal, F.; Thorsby, E. Evidence for a primary association of celiac disease to a particular HLA-DQ alpha/beta heterodimer. J. Exp. Med. 1989, 169, 345–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sollid, L.M.; Thorsby, E. The primary association of celiac disease to a given HLA-DQ alpha/beta heterodimer explains the divergent HLA-DR associations observed in various Caucasian populations. Tissue Antigens 1990, 36, 136–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rubio-Tapia, A.; Hill, I.D.; Kelly, C.P.; Calderwood, A.H.; Murray, J.A.; American College of Gastroenterology. ACG clinical guidelines: Diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 108, 656–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Djilali-Saiah, I.; Caillat-Zucman, S.; Schmitz, J.; Chaves-Vieira, M.L.; Bach, J.F. Polymorphism of antigen processing (TAP, LMP) and HLA class II genes in celiac disease. Hum. Immunol. 1994, 40, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hunt, K.A.; Zhernakova, A.; Turner, G.; Heap, G.A.; Franke, L.; Bruinenberg, M.; Romanos, J.; Dinesen, L.C.; Ryan, A.W.; Panesar, D.; et al. Newly identified genetic risk variants for celiac disease related to the immune response. Nat. Genet. 2008, 40, 395–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dubois, P.C.; van Heel, D.A. Translational mini-review series on the immunogenetics of gut disease: Immunogenetics of coeliac disease. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 2008, 153, 162–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Goudey, B.; Abraham, G.; Kikianty, E.; Wang, Q.; Rawlinson, D.; Shi, F.; Haviv, I.; Stern, L.; Kowalczyk, A.; Inouye, M. Interactions within the MHC contribute to the genetic architecture of celiac disease. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pietz, G.; De, R.; Hedberg, M.; Sjoberg, V.; Sandstrom, O.; Hernell, O.; Hammarstrom, S.; Hammarstrom, M.L. Immunopathology of childhood celiac disease-Key role of intestinal epithelial cells. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0185025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mayassi, T.; Ladell, K.; Gudjonson, H.; McLaren, J.E.; Shaw, D.G.; Tran, M.T.; Rokicka, J.J.; Lawrence, I.; Grenier, J.C.; van Unen, V.; et al. Chronic inflammation permanently reshapes tissue-resident immunity in celiac disease. Cell 2019, 176, 967–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rhodes, D.A.; Stammers, M.; Malcherek, G.; Beck, S.; Trowsdale, J. The cluster of BTN genes in the extended major histocompatibility complex. Genomics 2001, 71, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Arnett, H.A.; Viney, J.L. Immune modulation by butyrophilins. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2014, 14, 559–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rhodes, D.A.; Reith, W.; Trowsdale, J. Regulation of immunity by butyrophilins. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2016, 34, 151–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Malcherek, G.; Mayr, L.; Roda-Navarro, P.; Rhodes, D.; Miller, N.; Trowsdale, J. The B7 homolog butyrophilin BTN2A1 is a novel ligand for DC-SIGN. J. Immunol. 2007, 179, 3804–3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Messal, N.; Mamessier, E.; Sylvain, A.; Celis-Gutierrez, J.; Thibult, M.L.; Chetaille, B.; Firaguay, G.; Pastor, S.; Guillaume, Y.; Wang, Q.; et al. Differential role for CD277 as a co-regulator of the immune signal in T and NK cells. Eur. J. Immunol. 2011, 41, 3443–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Di Marco Barros, R.; Roberts, N.A.; Dart, R.J.; Vantourout, P.; Jandke, A.; Nussbaumer, O.; Deban, L.; Cipolat, S.; Hart, R.; Iannitto, M.L.; et al. Epithelia use butyrophilin-like molecules to shape organ-specific gamma delta T cell compartments. Cell 2016, 167, 203–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jandke, A.; Melandri, D.; Monin, L.; Ushakov, D.S.; Laing, A.G.; Vantourout, P.; East, P.; Nitta, T.; Narita, T.; Takayanagi, H.; et al. Butyrophilin-like proteins display combinatorial diversity in selecting and maintaining signature intraepithelial gammadelta T cell compartments. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Melandri, D.; Zlatareva, I.; Chaleil, R.A.G.; Dart, R.J.; Chancellor, A.; Nussbaumer, O.; Polyakova, O.; Roberts, N.A.; Wesch, D.; Kabelitz, D.; et al. The γδ TCR combines innate immunity with adaptive immunity by utilizing spatially distinct regions for agonist selection and antigen responsiveness. Nat. Immunol. 2018, 19, 1352–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vantourout, P.; Laing, A.; Woodward, M.J.; Zlatareva, I.; Apolonia, L.; Jones, A.W.; Snijders, A.P.; Malim, M.H.; Hayday, A.C. Heteromeric interactions regulate butyrophilin (BTN) and BTN-like molecules governing gammadelta T cell biology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 1039–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Willcox, C.R.; Vantourout, P.; Salim, M.; Zlatareva, I.; Melandri, D.; Zanardo, L.; George, R.; Kjaer, S.; Jeeves, M.; Mohammed, F.; et al. Butyrophilin-like 3 Directly Binds a Human Vγ4(+) T Cell Receptor Using a Modality Distinct from Clonally-Restricted Antigen. Immunity 2019, 51, 813–825 e814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lewis, J.M.; Girardi, M.; Roberts, S.J.; Barbee, S.D.; Hayday, A.C.; Tigelaar, R.E. Selection of the cutaneous intraepithelial γδ⁺ T cell repertoire by a thymic stromal determinant. Nat. Immunol. 2006, 7, 843–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cano, C.E.; Pasero, C.; De Gassart, A.; Kerneur, C.; Gabriac, M.; Fullana, M.; Granarolo, E.; Hoet, R.; Scotet, E.; Rafia, C.; et al. BTN2A1, an immune checkpoint targeting Vγ9Vδ2 T cell cytotoxicity against malignant cells. Cell Rep. 2021, 36, 109359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hayday, A.C.; Vantourout, P. The innate biologies of adaptive antigen receptors. Annu. Rev. Immunol. 2020, 38, 487–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karunakaran, M.M.; Gobel, T.W.; Starick, L.; Walter, L.; Herrmann, T. Vγ9 and Vδ2 T cell antigen receptor genes and butyrophilin 3 (BTN3) emerged with placental mammals and are concomitantly preserved in selected species like alpaca (Vicugna pacos). Immunogenetics 2014, 66, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fichtner, A.S.; Karunakaran, M.M.; Gu, S.; Boughter, C.T.; Borowska, M.T.; Starick, L.; Nohren, A.; Gobel, T.W.; Adams, E.J.; Herrmann, T. Alpaca (Vicugna pacos), the first nonprimate species with a phosphoantigen-reactive Vγ9Vδ2 T cell subset. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 6697–6707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Rigau, M.; Ostrouska, S.; Fulford, T.S.; Johnson, D.N.; Woods, K.; Ruan, Z.; McWilliam, H.E.G.; Hudson, C.; Tutuka, C.; Wheatley, A.K.; et al. Butyrophilin 2A1 is essential for phosphoantigen reactivity by gammadelta T cells. Science 2020, 367, eaay5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sandstrom, A.; Peigne, C.M.; Leger, A.; Crooks, J.E.; Konczak, F.; Gesnel, M.C.; Breathnach, R.; Bonneville, M.; Scotet, E.; Adams, E.J. The intracellular B30.2 domain of butyrophilin 3A1 binds phosphoantigens to mediate activation of human Vγ9Vδ2 T cells. Immunity 2014, 40, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hu, W.; Shang, R.; Yang, J.; Chen, C.; Liu, Z.; Liang, G.; He, W.; Luo, G. Skin γδ T tells and their function in wound healing. Front. Immunol. 2022, 13, 875076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Han, A.; Newell, E.W.; Glanville, J.; Fernandez-Becker, N.; Khosla, C.; Chien, Y.H.; Davis, M.M. Dietary gluten triggers concomitant activation of CD4+ and CD8+ alphabeta T cells and gammadelta T cells in celiac disease. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 13073–13078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aigner, J.; Villatoro, S.; Rabionet, R.; Roquer, J.; Jimenez-Conde, J.; Marti, E.; Estivill, X. A common 56-kilobase deletion in a primate-specific segmental duplication creates a novel butyrophilin-like protein. BMC Genet. 2013, 14, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mitsunaga, S.; Hosomichi, K.; Okudaira, Y.; Nakaoka, H.; Kunii, N.; Suzuki, Y.; Kuwana, M.; Sato, S.; Kaneko, Y.; Homma, Y.; et al. Exome sequencing identifies novel rheumatoid arthritis-susceptible variants in the BTNL2. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 58, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sirota, M.; Schaub, M.A.; Batzoglou, S.; Robinson, W.H.; Butte, A.J. Autoimmune disease classification by inverse association with SNP alleles. PLoS Genet. 2009, 5, e1000792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Orozco, G.; Eerligh, P.; Sanchez, E.; Zhernakova, S.; Roep, B.O.; Gonzalez-Gay, M.A.; Lopez-Nevot, M.A.; Callejas, J.L.; Hidalgo, C.; Pascual-Salcedo, D.; et al. Analysis of a functional BTNL2 polymorphism in type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and systemic lupus erythematosus. Hum. Immunol. 2005, 66, 1235–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Traherne, J.A.; Barcellos, L.F.; Sawcer, S.J.; Compston, A.; Ramsay, P.P.; Hauser, S.L.; Oksenberg, J.R.; Trowsdale, J. Association of the truncating splice site mutation in BTNL2 with multiple sclerosis is secondary to HLA-DRB1*15. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2006, 15, 155–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hippich, M.; Beyerlein, A.; Hagopian, W.A.; Krischer, J.P.; Vehik, K.; Knoop, J.; Winker, C.; Toppari, J.; Lernmark, A.; Rewers, M.J.; et al. Genetic contribution to the divergence in type 1 diabetes risk between children from the general population and children from affected families. Diabetes 2019, 68, 847–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
He, C.; Hamon, S.; Li, D.; Barral-Rodriguez, S.; Ott, J.; Diabetes Genetics Consortium. MHC fine mapping of human type 1 diabetes using the T1DGC data. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2009, 11 (Suppl. 1), 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Boyle, A.P.; Hong, E.L.; Hariharan, M.; Cheng, Y.; Schaub, M.A.; Kasowski, M.; Karczewski, K.J.; Park, J.; Hitz, B.C.; Weng, S.; et al. Annotation of functional variation in personal genomes using RegulomeDB. Genome Res. 2012, 22, 1790–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dong, S.; Zhao, N.; Spragins, E.; Kagda, M.S.; Li, M.; Assis, P.; Jolanki, O.; Luo, Y.; Cherry, J.M.; Boyle, A.P.; et al. Annotating and prioritizing human non-coding variants with RegulomeDB. bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Spurkland, A.; Sollid, L.M.; Polanco, I.; Vartdal, F.; Thorsby, E. HLA-DR and -DQ genotypes of celiac disease patients serologically typed to be non-DR3 or non-DR5/7. Hum. Immunol. 1992, 35, 188–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dart, R.J.; Zlatareva, I.; Vantourout, P.; Theodoridis, E.; Amar, A.; Kannambath, S.; East, P.; Recaldin, T.; Mansfield, J.C.; Lamb, C.A.; et al. Conserved gammadelta T cell selection by BTNL proteins limits progression of human inflammatory bowel disease. Science 2023, 381, eadh0301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Guo, M.H.; Plummer, L.; Chan, Y.M.; Hirschhorn, J.N.; Lippincott, M.F. Burden Testing of Rare Variants Identified through Exome Sequencing via Publicly Available Control Data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2018, 103, 522–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Guo, M.H. Burden Testing Against Public Controls. Available online: https://github.com/mhguo1/TRAPD (accessed on 24 April 2023).
Viken, M.K.; Blomhoff, A.; Olsson, M.; Akselsen, H.E.; Pociot, F.; Nerup, J.; Kockum, I.; Cambon-Thomsen, A.; Thorsby, E.; Undlien, D.E.; et al. Reproducible association with type 1 diabetes in the extended class I region of the major histocompatibility complex. Genes Immun. 2009, 10, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horton, R.; Wilming, L.; Rand, V.; Lovering, R.C.; Bruford, E.A.; Khodiyar, V.K.; Lush, M.J.; Povey, S.; Talbot, C.C., Jr.; Wright, M.W.; et al. Gene map of the extended human MHC. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2004, 5, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bycroft, C.; Freeman, C.; Petkova, D.; Band, G.; Elliott, L.T.; Sharp, K.; Motyer, A.; Vukcevic, D.; Delaneau, O.; O’Connell, J.; et al. The UK Biobank resource with deep phenotyping and genomic data. Nature 2018, 562, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foers, A.D.; Shoukat, M.S.; Welsh, O.E.; Donovan, K.; Petry, R.; Evans, S.C.; FitzPatrick, M.E.; Collins, N.; Klenerman, P.; Fowler, A.; et al. Classification of intestinal T-cell receptor repertoires using machine learning methods can identify patients with coeliac disease regardless of dietary gluten status. J. Pathol. 2021, 253, 279–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Falchuk, Z.M.; Rogentine, G.N.; Strober, W. Predominance of histocompatibility antigen HL-A8 in patients with gluten-sensitive enteropathy. J. Clin. Investig. 1972, 51, 1602–1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Stokes, P.L.; Asquith, P.; Holmes, G.K.; Mackintosh, P.; Cooke, W.T. Histocompatibility antigens associated with adult coeliac disease. Lancet 1972, 2, 162–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lindfors, K.; Ciacci, C.; Kurppa, K.; Lundin, K.E.A.; Makharia, G.K.; Mearin, M.L.; Murray, J.A.; Verdu, E.F.; Kaukinen, K. Coeliac disease. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2019, 5, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Karunakaran, M.M.; Willcox, C.R.; Salim, M.; Paletta, D.; Fichtner, A.S.; Noll, A.; Starick, L.; Nohren, A.; Begley, C.R.; Berwick, K.A.; et al. Butyrophilin-2A1 directly binds germline-encoded regions of the Vγ9Vδ2 TCR and is essential for phosphoantigen sensing. Immunity 2020, 52, 487–498 e486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rhodes, D.A.; Chen, H.C.; Price, A.J.; Keeble, A.H.; Davey, M.S.; James, L.C.; Eberl, M.; Trowsdale, J. Activation of human gammadelta T cells by cytosolic interactions of BTN3A1 with soluble phosphoantigens and the cytoskeletal adaptor periplakin. J. Immunol. 2015, 194, 2390–2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sudlow, C.; Gallacher, J.; Allen, N.; Beral, V.; Burton, P.; Danesh, J.; Downey, P.; Elliott, P.; Green, J.; Landray, M.; et al. UK Biobank: An open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS Med. 2015, 12, e1001779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Human Protein Atlas, P. Human Protein Atlas. Available online: http://www.proteinatlas.org (accessed on 20 April 2021).
Sayers, E.W.; Bolton, E.E.; Brister, J.R.; Canese, K.; Chan, J.; Comeau, D.C.; Connor, R.; Funk, K.; Kelly, C.; Kim, S.; et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022, 50, D20–D26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nonacus. Nonacus Probe Design Tool. Available online: https://mynonacus.nonacus.com/view-panel-designs (accessed on 8 February 2021).
Simms, V. 5 Tips for Using the Nonacus Panel Design Tool. Available online: https://nonacus.com/blog-get-great-coverage-for-the-genes-you-care-about/ (accessed on 27 September 2024).
Nonacus. Custom NGS Panel Design Tool. Available online: https://nonacus.com/panel-design/ (accessed on 2 October 2024).
Andrews, S. FastQC: A Quality Control Analysis Tool for High Throughput Sequencing Data. Available online: https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/ (accessed on 2 October 2024).
Bolger, A.M.; Lohse, M.; Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: A flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 2114–2120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van der Auwera, G.A.; O’Connor, B.D. Genomics in the Cloud: Using Docker, GATK, and WDL in Terra, 1st ed.; O’Reilly Media: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Zhao, S.; Agafonov, O.; Azab, A.; Stokowy, T.; Hovig, E. Accuracy and efficiency of germline variant calling pipelines for human genome data. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cucco, F.; Barrans, S.; Sha, C.; Clipson, A.; Crouch, S.; Dobson, R.; Chen, Z.; Thompson, J.S.; Care, M.A.; Cummin, T.; et al. Distinct genetic changes reveal evolutionary history and heterogeneous molecular grade of DLBCL with MYC/BCL2 double-hit. Leukemia 2020, 34, 1329–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cucco, F.; Clipson, A.; Kennedy, H.; Sneath Thompson, J.; Wang, M.; Barrans, S.; van Hoppe, M.; Ochoa Ruiz, E.; Caddy, J.; Hamid, D.; et al. Mutation screening using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues: A stratified approach according to DNA quality. Lab Investig. 2018, 98, 1084–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Matthews, J. A Snakemake Pipeline for Analysing (Cancer) DNA Sequencing Data. Available online: https://gitlab.com/jdm204/dnaseq_snakemake (accessed on 21 October 2022).
Kawaguchi, S. HLA-HD. Available online: https://w3.genome.med.kyoto-u.ac.jp/HLA-HD/ (accessed on 17 March 2023).
Danecek, P.; Bonfield, J.K.; Liddle, J.; Marshall, J.; Ohan, V.; Pollard, M.O.; Whitwham, A.; Keane, T.; McCarthy, S.A.; Davies, R.M.; et al. Twelve years of SAMtools and BCFtools. Gigascience 2021, 10, giab008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McLaren, W.; Gil, L.; Hunt, S.E.; Riat, H.S.; Ritchie, G.R.; Thormann, A.; Flicek, P.; Cunningham, F. The Ensembl Variant Effect Predictor. Genome Biol. 2016, 17, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yu, Y.; Fedele, G.; Celardo, I.; Loh, S.H.Y.; Martins, L.M. Parp mutations protect from mitochondrial toxicity in Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Death Dis. 2021, 12, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Grueneberg, A.; de Los Campos, G. BGData—A Suite of R Packages for Genomic Analysis with Big Data. G3 2019, 9, 1377–1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
NCBI. SNP. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/snp (accessed on 25 June 2024).
Lefranc, M.P.; Giudicelli, V.; Duroux, P.; Jabado-Michaloud, J.; Folch, G.; Aouinti, S.; Carillon, E.; Duvergey, H.; Houles, A.; Paysan-Lafosse, T.; et al. IMGT(R), the international ImMunoGeneTics information system(R) 25 years on. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, D413–D422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bolotin, D.A.; Poslavsky, S.; Mitrophanov, I.; Shugay, M.; Mamedov, I.Z.; Putintseva, E.V.; Chudakov, D.M. MiXCR: Software for comprehensive adaptive immunity profiling. Nat. Methods 2015, 12, 380–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bolotin, D.A.; Poslavsky, S.; Davydov, A.N.; Frenkel, F.E.; Fanchi, L.; Zolotareva, O.I.; Hemmers, S.; Putintseva, E.V.; Obraztsova, A.S.; Shugay, M.; et al. Antigen receptor repertoire profiling from RNA-seq data. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017, 35, 908–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
McDonald, J.H. Handbook of Biological Statistics, 3rd ed.; Sparky House Publishing: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Uhlen, M.; Fagerberg, L.; Hallstrom, B.M.; Lindskog, C.; Oksvold, P.; Mardinoglu, A.; Sivertsson, A.; Kampf, C.; Sjostedt, E.; Asplund, A.; et al. Tissue-based map of the human proteome. Science 2015, 347, 1260419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mölder, F.; Jablonski, K.; Letcher, B.; Hall, M.; Tomkins-Tinch, C.; Sochat, V.; Forster, J.; Lee, S.; Twardziok, S.; Kanitz, A.; et al. Sustainable data analysis with Snakemake [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2021, 10, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schneider, V.A.; Graves-Lindsay, T.; Howe, K.; Bouk, N.; Chen, H.C.; Kitts, P.A.; Murphy, T.D.; Pruitt, K.D.; Thibaud-Nissen, F.; Albracht, D.; et al. Evaluation of GRCh38 and de novo haploid genome assemblies demonstrates the enduring quality of the reference assembly. Genome Res. 2017, 27, 849–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Danecek, P.; Auton, A.; Abecasis, G.; Albers, C.A.; Banks, E.; DePristo, M.A.; Handsaker, R.E.; Lunter, G.; Marth, G.T.; Sherry, S.T.; et al. The variant call format and VCFtools. Bioinformatics 2011, 27, 2156–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, K.; Li, M.; Hakonarson, H. ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, e164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dilthey, A.; Leslie, S.; Moutsianas, L.; Shen, J.; Cox, C.; Nelson, M.R.; McVean, G. Multi-population classical HLA type imputation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2013, 9, e1002877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gustavsen, J.; Rüeger, S.; Chamberlain, S.; Ushey, K.; Zhu, H. rsnps: Get ‘SNP’ (‘Single-Nucleotide’ ‘Polymorphism’) Data on the Web. 2024. Available online: https://github.com/ropensci/rsnps/ (accessed on 21 July 2024).
Graffelman, J. Exploring Diallelic Genetic Markers: The HardyWeinberg Package. J. Stat. Softw. 2015, 64, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kawaguchi, S.; Higasa, K.; Shimizu, M.; Yamada, R.; Matsuda, F. HLA-HD: An accurate HLA typing algorithm for next-generation sequencing data. Hum. Mutat. 2017, 38, 788–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Figure 1. The germline-encoded HV4 loop of the T cell receptor (TCR) of Vγ4+ γδ IELs directly binds to BTNL3. (a) HV4 is located at amino acid positions 10–25 in the FR3 of the TRGV4 segment [31]. (b) The HV4 of Vγ4+ γδ T cells binds to the C, C”, F, and G canonical immunoglobulin-fold β-strands (CFG face) of the BTNL3 protein [29]. Abbreviations: CDR: complementarity-determining region; FR: framework region; HV4: hypervariable region 4; TRGJ: T cell receptor γ joining region; TRGV: T cell receptor γ variable region.

Figure 2. Workflow of the study on the association of the butyrophilin family loci and the TRGV4-HV4 sequences with CeD predisposition.

Figure 3. There were no significant differences in the TRGV usage of CeD (n = 45) and healthy control (n = 108) duodenal samples.

Figure 4. BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 may be involved in CeD pathogenesis by modulating T cell and innate immune cell activity. BTN2A1 gene burden was significantly higher in CeD patients in a cohort of 94 samples. Meanwhile, BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs were significantly associated with CeD status in the UK Biobank database. Based on our results and evidence on the immunomodulatory role of butyrophilins on innate and adaptive immune cells, butyrophilins could contribute to CeD pathogenesis in multiple potential manners [25,26,37,38,61]: (a) via the novel, hypothesised pAg-dependent activation of Vγ4+ γδ T cells; (b) via the interaction of BTN2A1 with dendritic cells through the DC-SIGN receptor on the DC cell surface; (c) by increasing the co-stimulation and IFN-γ production of CD4+ αβ T cells, or by modulating the activity and IFN-γ production of NK cells depending on whether BTN3A1 or BTN3A2 is expressed predominantly on the surface of the NK cell; or (d) via the pAg-dependent activation of potentially gut-homing Vγ9Vδ2+ γδ T cells in the small intestine.

Table 1. Butyrophilins maintain and activate the γδ T cell compartments of mice and humans. Human butyrophilin family members are shortened with all letters capitalised, while only the first letter of mouse butyrophilins is capitalised [24].

	Butyrophilins	γδ T Cell Subset	Role of Butyrophilins	References
Peripheral blood	Mouse unidentified	Unidentified	Unidentified	NA
	Alpaca BTN3	Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells	No interaction has been identified	[35,36]
	Human BTN3A homodimers/ heterodimers and BTN2A1 homodimer	Vγ9Vδ2+ T cells	Phosphoantigen-mediated, CDR3-independent γδ T cell activation	[30,33,37,38]
Skin	Mouse Skint1 and Skint2	Vγ5Vδ1+ DETC	Thymic selection, tissue homing of dendritic epidermal T cells to the skin	[27,28,32]
Skin	Human?	Vδ1+ T cells	Unidentified, unknown if there is butyrophilin involvement	[39]
Intestinal epithelium	Mouse Btnl1 and Btnl6	Vγ7+ IEL	Phenotypic maintenance of the intestinal IEL compartment	[27,28]
Intestinal epithelium	Human BTNL3 and BTNL8	Vγ4Vδ1+ IEL	Phenotypic maintenance of the intestinal IEL compartment	[21,27,29]

Table 2. Gene-based burden testing of butyrophilin family non-synonymous coding variants in CeD patients (n = 48) against controls (n = 46) showed significant differences in the disease burden of BTN2A1 variants. Non-synonymous coding variants that were predicted to be pathogenic or had low minor allele frequencies were considered qualifying variants for burden testing. (a) Burden tests were carried out using the TRAPD program [52] on butyrophilin family qualifying variants in CeD patients (n = 48) against controls (n = 46). Multi-allelic sites were separated into bi-allelic SNPs, as required by the TRAPD documentation [53]. The dominant model defines carriers for gene burden as individuals with at least one qualifying variant within a gene, while the recessive model requires at least two or more qualifying variants. Significant results were highlighted in bold. A version of table (a) with the percentage of individuals and alleles within the CeD and the control groups can be found in Table A10. (b) The BTN2A1 qualifying SNPs demonstrated a significant burden in CeD samples. Count data of individuals and alleles are in parentheses after the percentage value in columns 6–9 and columns 10–11, respectively. The percentage and count data were calculated from the per sample genotypes found in Table A11.

(a)
Gene	Qual. SNPs	CeD N(≥1 HET)	CeD N(≥2 HET)	CeD N(HOM ALT)	CeD Total Allele Count	Control N(≥1 HET)	Control N(≥2 HET)	Control N(HOM ALT)	Control Total Allele Count	Dominant Model p-Value	Recessive Model p-Value
BTN2A1	3	22	21	3	81	5	4	0	13	1.46 × 10⁻⁵	3.70 × 10⁻⁸
BTN3A2	1	5	0	1	7	9	0	1	11	0.929	0.946
ERMAP	1	21	0	8	37	20	0	7	34	0.516	0.988
(b) BTN2A1 variants significantly associated with CeD risk
Position (GRCh38)	rsID		Variation		Impact	HET CeD	HOM ALT CeD	HET Control	HOM ALT Control	Alt Allele in CeD	Alt Allele in Controls
6:26463432	rs13195509		G > A		Missense variant, Val > Met	43.8% (21)	6.3% (3)	8.7% (4)	0.0% (0)	27.1% (26)	4.3% (4)
6:26468098	rs3734542		G > A		Missense variant, Arg > Gln	45.8% (22)	6.3% (3)	10.9% (5)	0.0% (0)	29.2% (28)	5.4% (5)
6:26468317	rs3734543		G > C		Missense variant, Gly > Ala	43.8% (21)	6.3% (3)	8.7% (4)	0.0% (0)	28.1% (27)	4.3% (4)

Abbreviations: Alt allele: alternative or minor allele; CeD: coeliac disease; GRCh38: Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 38; HET: heterozygous; HOM ALT: homozygous for alternative allele; N(≥1 HET): number of individuals carrying at least one heterozygous qualifying variant within the gene; N(≥2 HET): number of individuals carrying at least two heterozygous qualifying variant within the gene; N(HOM ALT): number of individuals carrying at least one homozygous qualifying variant within the gene; qual: qualifying; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Table 3. SNPs of selected butyrophilin genes present in the UK Biobank.

Gene	SNPs in NCBI	Unique SNPs in NCBI	SNPs in UK Biobank
BTN2A1	7912	7605	30
BTN3A1	5348	5164	27
BTN3A2	5905	5611	21
BTNL3	6164	5929	10
BTNL8	18,889	18,197	13

Table 4. SNPs from BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 genes were significantly associated with CeD status in the UK Biobank. The name of the SNPs in the UK Biobank database is a combination of the reference SNP ID (rsID) from the SNP database (dbSNP) and the reference allele. All BTN2A1, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 SNPs in the UK Biobank were subjected to single-variant testing to examine their association with CeD. Due to multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was applied. SNPs with a negative ln(OR) are associated with lower CeD risk in this binomial model, meaning that the reference allele is less frequent in CeD patients. SNPs in bold remained significantly associated with CeD in the binomial regression models that also took the HLA genotype into account. SNP count and allele count data for the significant SNPs can be found in Table A16. All significant SNPs in control participants were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (Table A17).

Position (GRCh38)	SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	SNP Consequence	CeD Allele Freq	Control Allele Freq	Total Allele Freq	ln(OR)	CeD Risk	Adjusted p-Value
6:26463347	rs13195402	BTN2A1	STOP gained	0.768	0.892	0.880	−0.924	decrease	4.67 × 10⁻¹⁵⁸
6:26463432	rs13195509	BTN2A1	missense	0.754	0.879	0.867	−0.857	decrease	1.61 × 10⁻¹⁵¹
6:26475927	rs1407045	BTN2A1	intronic	0.584	0.516	0.522	0.273	increase	6.07 × 10⁻²²
6:26465807	rs2273558	BTN2A1	intronic	0.583	0.677	0.667	−0.396	decrease	1.69 × 10⁻⁴¹
6:26460493	rs2893856	BTN2A1	intronic	0.113	0.131	0.130	−0.175	decrease	3.23 × 10⁻³
6:26468098	rs3734542	BTN2A1	missense	0.753	0.878	0.867	−0.855	decrease	8.59 × 10⁻¹⁵¹
6:26468317	rs3734543	BTN2A1	missense	0.760	0.879	0.868	−0.844	decrease	1.59 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰
6:26466954	rs3799380	BTN2A1	intronic	0.683	0.790	0.780	−0.549	decrease	8.59 × 10⁻⁷⁷
6:26474343	rs56296968	BTN2A1	intronic	0.696	0.807	0.796	−0.604	decrease	9.70 × 10⁻⁸⁹
6:26456215	rs6456724	BTN2A1	2 kb upstream	0.113	0.131	0.130	−0.176	decrease	2.87 × 10⁻³
6:26458037	rs6929846	BTN2A1	5′ UTR	0.146	0.174	0.172	−0.206	decrease	3.60 × 10⁻⁶
6:26473816	rs7773938	BTN2A1	intronic	0.696	0.806	0.796	−0.600	decrease	1.15 × 10⁻⁸⁷
6:26469647	rs9358944	BTN2A1	intronic	0.695	0.806	0.796	−0.604	decrease	1.55 × 10⁻⁸⁹
6:26471886	rs9358945	BTN2A1	intronic	0.694	0.806	0.796	−0.606	decrease	4.37 × 10⁻⁹⁰
6:26404730	rs10456045	BTN3A1	intronic	0.596	0.698	0.688	−0.448	decrease	2.97 × 10⁻⁵⁷
6:26410572	rs1796520	BTN3A1	intronic	0.405	0.474	0.467	−0.276	decrease	2.40 × 10⁻²²
6:26404146	rs3799378	BTN3A1	intronic	0.653	0.762	0.752	−0.535	decrease	2.92 × 10⁻⁷⁵
6:26405825	rs3857549	BTN3A1	intronic	0.948	0.935	0.936	0.221	increase	1.53 × 10⁻²
6:26409662	rs41266839	BTN3A1	missense	0.764	0.892	0.880	−0.924	decrease	2.12 × 10⁻¹⁶⁸
6:26407180	rs4609015	BTN3A1	intronic	0.871	0.854	0.855	0.141	increase	3.82 × 10⁻²
6:26412860	rs6900725	BTN3A1	intronic	0.870	0.853	0.855	0.139	increase	4.33 × 10⁻²
6:26401210	rs6912853	BTN3A1	2 kb upstream	0.863	0.844	0.846	0.153	increase	7.85 × 10⁻³
6:26413007	rs6920986	BTN3A1	intronic	0.870	0.854	0.856	0.138	increase	4.99 × 10⁻²
6:26415409	rs742090	BTN3A1	500 b downstream	0.406	0.474	0.468	−0.276	decrease	3.58 × 10⁻²²
6:26374321	rs11758089	BTN3A2	intronic	0.866	0.844	0.846	0.176	increase	6.30 × 10⁻⁴
6:26372558	rs12176317	BTN3A2	intronic	0.744	0.867	0.856	−0.809	decrease	6.72 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰
6:26366990	rs12199613	BTN3A2	intronic	0.514	0.612	0.602	−0.400	decrease	1.76 × 10⁻⁴⁷
6:26377318	rs1977	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	0.740	0.864	0.853	−0.808	decrease	1.17 × 10⁻¹³⁶
6:26377363	rs1979	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	0.743	0.867	0.855	−0.809	decrease	8.23 × 10⁻¹⁴⁰
6:26375933	rs1985732	BTN3A2	intronic	0.595	0.698	0.688	−0.457	decrease	2.87 × 10⁻⁵⁹
6:26374430	rs2073526	BTN3A2	intronic	0.370	0.442	0.435	−0.295	decrease	9.15 × 10⁻²⁵
6:26363527	rs9358934	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	0.744	0.866	0.855	−0.803	decrease	2.34 × 10⁻¹³⁷
6:26364702	rs9379855	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	0.743	0.866	0.855	−0.804	decrease	8.85 × 10⁻¹³⁸
6:26367461	rs9379858	BTN3A2	intronic	0.743	0.866	0.855	−0.802	decrease	3.19 × 10⁻¹³⁷
6:26369321	rs9379859	BTN3A2	intronic	0.744	0.867	0.855	−0.803	decrease	5.37 × 10⁻¹³⁷
6:26373450	rs9393713	BTN3A2	intronic	0.743	0.868	0.856	−0.814	decrease	1.07 × 10⁻¹⁴¹
6:26373512	rs9393714	BTN3A2	intronic	0.743	0.868	0.856	−0.813	decrease	6.99 × 10⁻¹⁴¹

Abbreviations: CeD: coeliac disease; freq: frequency; GRCh38: Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 38; kb: kilobase; ln(OR): natural logarithm of the odds ratio; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism; UTR: untranslated region.

Table 5. Twenty SNPs from BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 genes were significantly associated with CeD status in the UK Biobank when HLA genotypes were included in the single-variant testing models. BTN2A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 SNPs in the UK Biobank were subjected to single-variant testing to examine their association with CeD. Due to multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was applied. SNPs with a negative ln(OR) are associated with lower CeD risk in this binomial model. All significant SNPs in control participants were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (Table A19).

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	SNP Consequence	ln(OR)	CeD Risk	Adjusted p-Value
rs13195402	BTN2A1	STOP gained	−0.20727	decrease	8.15 × 10⁻⁶
rs13195509	BTN2A1	missense	−0.19239	decrease	1.62 × 10⁻⁵
rs3734542	BTN2A1	missense	−0.18831	decrease	2.94 × 10⁻⁵
rs3734543	BTN2A1	missense	−0.16744	decrease	8.23 × 10⁻⁴
rs56296968	BTN2A1	intronic	−0.11753	decrease	4.20 × 10⁻²
rs9358944	BTN2A1	intronic	−0.11786	decrease	3.83 × 10⁻²
rs9358945	BTN2A1	intronic	−0.12018	decrease	2.91 × 10⁻²
rs3799378	BTN3A1	intronic	−0.14327	decrease	7.04 × 10⁻⁴
rs41266839	BTN3A1	missense	−0.21469	decrease	1.06 × 10⁻⁶
rs12176317	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.1974	decrease	3.50 × 10⁻⁶
rs12199613	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.12296	decrease	3.31 × 10⁻³
rs1977	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	−0.20238	decrease	2.06 × 10⁻⁶
rs1979	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	−0.19756	decrease	3.40 × 10⁻⁶
rs1985732	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.10975	decrease	3.35 × 10⁻²
rs9358934	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	−0.19286	decrease	7.53 × 10⁻⁶
rs9379855	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	−0.19406	decrease	6.04 × 10⁻⁶
rs9379858	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.19156	decrease	8.99 × 10⁻⁶
rs9379859	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.19261	decrease	8.10 × 10⁻⁶
rs9393713	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.2056	decrease	9.27 × 10⁻⁷
rs9393714	BTN3A2	intronic	−0.20087	decrease	2.08 × 10⁻⁶

Abbreviations: CeD: coeliac disease; ln(OR): natural logarithm of the odds ratio; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Table 6. Single-variant testing in HLA-matched groups from the UK Biobank dataset only identified significant SNPs associated with CeD status in individuals with HLA-DQ2.5 genotypes. The CeD and control participants of the UK Biobank dataset were divided into HLA-matched case-control groups for single-variant testing. The association between BTN2A1, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 SNPs and CeD status was investigated. Significant association between the SNPs and CeD status was only present in HLA-DQ2.5-matched individuals (in bold).

HLA Genotype of Individuals in Model	Number of CeD Participants	Number of Controls	Number of Significant SNPs
HLA-DQ2.2	199	4154	0
HLA-DQ2.5	1652	6416	21
HLA-DQ8	171	4203	0
HLA-DQ2.2, HLA-DQ2.5	606	895	0
HLA-DQ2.2, HLA-DQ8	50	590	0
HLA-DQ2.5, HLA-DQ8	182	886	0
Other	234	12,618	0

Table 7. Butyrophilin SNPs only remained significantly associated with CeD status in the HLA-DQ2.5-restricted UK Biobank analysis. The name of the SNPs in the UK Biobank database is a combination of the SNP name and the reference allele. All BTN2A1, BTN3A1, BTN3A2, BTNL3, and BTNL8 SNPs in the UK Biobank were subjected to single-variant testing to examine their association with CeD. Due to multiple testing, Bonferroni correction was applied. SNPs with a negative ln(OR) are associated with lower CeD risk in this binomial model. The SNP in bold was a novel SNP significantly associated with CeD unique to the HLA-DQ2.5 model, while the other SNPs were also significant in the non-HLA and the HLA models. SNP count and allele count data for the significant SNPs can be found in Table A21. The allele frequency of all the significantly associated SNPs in the control group significantly differed from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (Table A22).

SNP, Reference Allele	Gene	SNP Consequence	CeD Allele Freq	Control Allele Freq	Total Allele Freq	ln(OR)	CeD Risk	Adjusted p-Value
rs13195402	BTN2A1	STOP gained	0.704	0.751	0.741	−0.27812	decrease	5.10 × 10⁻⁷
rs13195509	BTN2A1	missense	0.687	0.734	0.724	−0.25542	decrease	1.75 × 10⁻⁶
rs3734542	BTN2A1	missense	0.687	0.733	0.723	−0.25235	decrease	2.52 × 10⁻⁶
rs3734543	BTN2A1	missense	0.695	0.736	0.728	−0.23279	decrease	5.43 × 10⁻⁵
rs56296968	BTN2A1	intronic	0.640	0.673	0.666	−0.15928	decrease	2.33 × 10⁻²
rs7773938	BTN2A1	intronic	0.640	0.672	0.666	−0.15755	decrease	2.66 × 10⁻²
rs9358944	BTN2A1	intronic	0.638	0.671	0.664	−0.16238	decrease	1.61 × 10⁻²
rs9358945	BTN2A1	intronic	0.638	0.671	0.665	−0.16499	decrease	1.26 × 10⁻²
rs3799378	BTN3A1	intronic	0.596	0.637	0.628	−0.18712	decrease	8.10 × 10⁻⁴
rs41266839	BTN3A1	missense	0.697	0.747	0.737	−0.28267	decrease	7.25 × 10⁻⁸
rs12176317	BTN3A2	intronic	0.679	0.729	0.719	−0.26575	decrease	2.82 × 10⁻⁷
rs12199613	BTN3A2	intronic	0.459	0.500	0.491	−0.1717	decrease	2.06 × 10⁻³
rs1977	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	0.676	0.726	0.716	−0.268	decrease	2.99 × 10⁻⁷
rs1979	BTN3A2	3′ UTR	0.679	0.728	0.718	−0.26376	decrease	3.63 × 10⁻⁷
rs1985732	BTN3A2	intronic	0.539	0.574	0.567	−0.15063	decrease	2.35 × 10⁻²
rs9358934	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	0.680	0.729	0.719	−0.25825	decrease	8.85 × 10⁻⁷
rs9379855	BTN3A2	2 kb upstream	0.680	0.728	0.718	−0.25967	decrease	6.76 × 10⁻⁷
rs9379858	BTN3A2	intronic	0.680	0.728	0.718	−0.25566	decrease	1.18 × 10⁻⁶
rs9379859	BTN3A2	intronic	0.681	0.729	0.719	−0.26105	decrease	6.31 × 10⁻⁷
rs9393713	BTN3A2	intronic	0.678	0.729	0.719	−0.27313	decrease	1.06 × 10⁻⁷
rs9393714	BTN3A2	intronic	0.679	0.729	0.719	−0.26778	decrease	2.25 × 10⁻⁷

Abbreviations: CeD: coeliac disease; freq: frequency; ln(OR): natural logarithm of the odds ratio; SNP: single-nucleotide polymorphism.

Table 8. The coeliac disease and healthy control patient TRG datasets analysed for TRGV usage and HV4 sequence variations. FFPE: formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded.

	Coeliac Disease	Healthy Control	Sequencing Method
Dataset 1	34 FFPE, 12 fresh frozen duodenal	97 FFPE duodenal	Lymphotrack (Invivoscribe Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) and Illumina Miseq micro (San Diego, CA, USA)
Dataset 2	11 FFPE duodenal	11 FFPE duodenal	Lymphotrack (Invivoscribe Inc.) and Illumina Miseq
Dataset 3	84 blood	130 blood	Illumina NextSeq
Combined	84 blood, 48 FFPE duodenal, 12 fresh frozen duodenal	130 blood, 108 FFPE duodenal	NA

Table 9. More than 95% of participants possessed at least one reference HV4 loop regardless of their CeD status. The dataset consisted of 238 healthy controls and 141 CeD samples. (a) Seven unique HV4 amino acid sequences were identified in the dataset. (b) The homozygous WT HV4 phenotype was the most frequent in both the healthy control and CeD groups.

(a)
HV4 Amino Acid Sequence	Amino Acid Change	Effect	Freq. in Healthy Control Samples (n = 238)	Freq. in CeD Samples (n = 141)	Predicted Change in Binding [31]
KYDTYGSTRKNLRMILR (WT)	-	-	430/476 = 0.903	254/282 = 0.901	-
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR	Lysine > Glutamine	Positive charge > polar uncharged	41/476 = 0.086	23/282 = 0.082	Marginal reduction in binding
KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR	Asparagine > Serine	Polar uncharged > polar uncharged	4/476 = 0.008	2/282 = 0.007	Unknown
KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA	Lysine > frameshift	Positive charge > different sequence	0	1/282 = 0.003	Unknown
KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR	Aspartic acid > Asparagine	Negative charge > polar uncharged	0	1/282 = 0.003	Disrupted binding
KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR	Serine > Asparagine	Polar uncharged > polar uncharged	1/476 = 0.002	0	Unknown
KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR	Threonine > Isoleucine	Polar uncharged > apolar	0	1/282 = 0.003	Unknown
(b)
Phenotype		Combined Healthy Control Samples (n = 238)		Combined CeD Samples (n = 141)
WT		202		116
WT, KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR		23		18
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR		9		2
WT, KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR		2		2
KYDTYGSTRQNLRMILR, KYDTYGSTR_ELENDTA		0		1
WT, KYNTYGSTRKNLRMILR		0		1
WT, KYDTYGNTRKNLRMILR		1		0
KYDTYGSTRKSLRMILR		1		0
WT, KYDTYGSIRKNLRMILR		0		1

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Luu Hoang, K.N.; Evans, S.; Willis, T.W.; Davies, K.; Kockelbergh, H.; Silcock, L.; Piechocki, K.; Fowler, A.; Soilleux, E.J. BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 10697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110697

AMA Style

Luu Hoang KN, Evans S, Willis TW, Davies K, Kockelbergh H, Silcock L, Piechocki K, Fowler A, Soilleux EJ. BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2025; 26(21):10697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110697

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luu Hoang, Kim Ngan, Shelley Evans, Thomas W. Willis, Kate Davies, Hannah Kockelbergh, Lee Silcock, Kim Piechocki, Anna Fowler, and Elizabeth J. Soilleux. 2025. "BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26, no. 21: 10697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110697

APA Style

Luu Hoang, K. N., Evans, S., Willis, T. W., Davies, K., Kockelbergh, H., Silcock, L., Piechocki, K., Fowler, A., & Soilleux, E. J. (2025). BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(21), 10697. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262110697

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Menu

BTN2A1 and BTN3A1 as Novel Coeliac Disease Risk Loci: An In Silico Analysis

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. Background to Coeliac Disease

1.2. The Emerging Role of the Butyrophilin Family of Genes and Their Role in Maintaining γδ T Cells

1.3. A Hypothesis for the Role of Butyrophilin Variation and γδ T Cells in CeD Risk

2. Results

2.1. BTN2A1 SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Risk in a Study of 94 Samples

2.1.1. Risk-Associated HLA Genotypes Were Significantly More Frequent in CeD Patients

2.1.2. The BTNL8*BTNL3 Copy Number Variant Was Not Associated with CeD

2.1.3. BTN2A1 Gene Burden Was Significantly Higher in CeD Patients

2.2. BTN3A1, BTN3A2, and BTN2A1 Genes Were Significantly Associated with CeD in HLA-DQ2.5-Matched Participants of the UK Biobank Database

2.2.1. Risk-Associated HLA Genotypes Were Significantly More Frequent in CeD Patients of the UK Biobank

2.2.2. BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Status in the UK Biobank

2.2.3. Twenty Butyrophilin SNPs from the UK Biobank Remained Significantly Associated with CeD Status When the Participants’ Risk HLA Genotypes Were Taken into Account

2.2.4. Twenty-One Butyrophilin SNPs Were Significantly Associated with CeD Status in HLA-DQ2.5-Matched Case-Control Groups of UK Biobank Participants

2.3. HV4 Variation Was Not Significantly Associated with CeD Risk in a Study of 379 Samples

2.3.1. TRGV Usage Was Not Significantly Different Between CeD and Control Samples

2.3.2. HV4 Sequence Variation Was Not Significantly Associated with CeD Risk

3. Discussion

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Participant Selection Criteria

4.1.1. Participant Selection for the Butyrophilin Family Gene Sequencing

4.1.2. Validation Cohort Participant Selection from the UK Biobank for Single-Variant Analysis

4.1.3. Samples Selected for the HV4 Analysis

4.2. Analysis of Butyrophilin Family Variation in the Targeted Sequencing Cohort

4.2.1. Sequencing of HLA Loci and Selected Butyrophilin Family Genes by Hybridisation Capture

4.2.2. Germline Short-Variant Discovery and HLA Genotyping

4.2.3. Copy Number Variation (CNV) Analysis of the BTNL8-BTNL3 Loci

4.2.4. Burden Testing Analysis

4.3. Single-Variant Testing of Butyrophilin Family Variance in the UK Biobank Database

4.3.1. CeD Risk-Associated HLA Genotyping in the UK Biobank Cohort

4.3.2. Single-Variant Testing Using Binomial Regression Models

4.4. Analysis of TRGV Usage and HV4 Variation in CeD and Control Samples

4.4.1. Processing Samples and TCR Sequencing

4.4.2. TRGV and HV4 Analysis Pipeline

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

Abbreviations

Appendix A. The Molecular Background of the 56 kb BTNL3*BTNL8 Deletion Variant

Appendix B. Selecting and Sequencing the Butyrophilin Genes of Interest

Appendix B.1. HPA Expression Profiles of Butyrophilin Family Genes

Appendix B.2. Modified Nonacus Cell3 Hybridisation Capture and Illumina Sequencing

Appendix B.3. Measuring DNA Quantity and Fragment Size

Appendix C. Detailed Germline Short-Variant Discovery Protocol

Appendix C.1. Per Sample Preprocesses and Variant Call Using GATK

Appendix C.2. Joint Genotyping Using GATK and Variant Annotation Using VCFtools and ANNOVAR

Appendix D. Detailed CNV Analysis and Burden Testing Protocols

Appendix D.1. BTNL8*BTNL3 CNV Analysis

Appendix D.2. Detailed Burden Testing Protocol

Appendix E. Detailed Protocol Single-Variant Testing Analysis of Selected Butyrophilin SNPs in the UK Biobank

Appendix E.1. HLA Genotyping in the UK Biobank Using the HLA Imputation Data

Appendix E.2. Detailed Single-Variant Testing of BTN2A1, BTN3A1, and BTN3A2 SNPs in the UK Biobank

Appendix F. Detailed TRGV4 Usage and HV4 Amino Acid Sequence Analysis Pipeline

Appendix G. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.1

Appendix H. Demographic Data of the Selected UK Biobank Participants

Appendix I. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.2

Appendix J. Supplementary Materials for Results Section 2.3

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI