Literature DB >> 16260271

Comparative study for the detection of peritubular capillary C4d deposition in human renal allografts using different methodologies.

Gyongyi M Nadasdy1, Cherri Bott, Daniel Cowden, Ronald Pelletier, Ronald Ferguson, Tibor Nadasdy.   

Abstract

Detection of peritubular capillary (PTC) C4d deposition in tissue sections of renal allograft biopsies became an important aid in the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection. Pathologists in many major transplant centers now routinely stain renal allograft biopsies for C4d. Currently, there are 3 commercially available antibodies. Two of these antibodies are monoclonal and are usually used with either a 3- or a 2-step indirect immunofluorescence (IF) methodology on frozen sections. A polyclonal antibody is used on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue section with an immunoperoxidase detection system. The goal of our study was to compare these antibodies and methodologies in our renal allograft biopsy material. Twenty renal allograft biopsies with diffuse or focal PTC C4d staining, using immunofluorescence methods on frozen sections, were selected for this study. These biopsies were tested with the 3 commercially available anti-C4d antibodies (Biogenesis, Brentwood, Calif, cat no. 222-8004; Quidel Corporation, Santa Clara, Calif, cat no. A213; and ALPCO Diagnostic, Windham, NH, cat no. 004-BI-RC4D). Both monoclonal antibodies (Biogenesis and Quidel) were tested with a 3- and a 2-step indirect IF method on frozen sections. The polyclonal antibody (ALPCO) was applied to formalin-fixed paraffin sections using immunoperoxidase methodology. In selected cases, the polyclonal antibody was tested on frozen sections with a 3-step indirect IF method. To exclude possible false-negative staining with the IF method, we selected 10 additional biopsies that showed PTC margination of inflammatory cells, but were C4d-negative or only focally positive, and tested them with the ALPCO antibody on paraffin sections. We have found that all methodologies and antibodies tested provided adequate results with only minor differences between them. Perhaps the most sensitive method is the 3-step indirect IF on frozen sections using one of the monoclonal antibodies. We prefer the 2-step indirect IF method with the Quidel monoclonal antibody because of its simplicity, quick turnaround time, and relatively low cost. The advantages and disadvantages of the individual methodologies are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16260271     DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Pathol        ISSN: 0046-8177            Impact factor:   3.466


  8 in total

Review 1.  [Alloantibodies-mediated kidney transplant rejection: a pair of continuing approaches, and with nonetheless many open questions].

Authors:  Georg Böhmig
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  C4d Immunohistochemistry in glomerulonephritis with different antibodies.

Authors:  Taisei Suzuki; Shigeru Horita; Koji Kadoya; Koji Mitsuiki; Kumi Aita; Atsumi Harada; Kosaku Nitta; Michio Nagata
Journal:  Clin Exp Nephrol       Date:  2007-12-21       Impact factor: 2.801

3.  Combined C4d and CD3 immunostaining predicts immunoglobulin (Ig)A nephropathy progression.

Authors:  B Faria; C Henriques; A C Matos; M R Daha; M Pestana; M Seelen
Journal:  Clin Exp Immunol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.330

4.  Reappraisal of PLA2R1 in membranous nephropathy: immunostaining method influence and association with IgG4-dominant phenotype.

Authors:  Shigeo Hara; Shunsuke Goto; Nozomu Kamiura; Akihiro Yoshimoto; Takayuki Naito; Naoko Imagawa; Yukihiro Imai; Motoko Yanagita; Shinichi Nishi; Tomoo Itoh
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-03-28       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Acute renal endothelial injury during marrow recovery in a cohort of combined kidney and bone marrow allografts.

Authors:  A B Farris; D Taheri; T Kawai; L Fazlollahi; W Wong; N Tolkoff-Rubin; T R Spitzer; A J Iafrate; F I Preffer; S A Locascio; B Sprangers; S Saidman; R N Smith; A B Cosimi; M Sykes; D H Sachs; R B Colvin
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2011-06-10       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 6.  Current status of pediatric renal transplant pathology.

Authors:  Jan U Becker
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.714

7.  The impact of pretransplant donor-specific antibodies on graft outcome in renal transplantation: a six-year follow-up study.

Authors:  Elias David-Neto; Patricia Soares Souza; Nicolas Panajotopoulos; Helcio Rodrigues; Carlucci Gualberto Ventura; Daisa Silva Ribeiro David; Francine Brambate Carvalhinho Lemos; Fabiana Agena; William Carlos Nahas; Jorge Elias Kalil; Maria Cristina Ribeiro Castro
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 2.365

8.  Pathological diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in renal allograft without c4d staining, how much reliable?

Authors:  Diana Taheri; Ardeshir Talebi; Maryam Taghaodi; Mehdi Fesharakizadeh; Mojgan Mortazavi; Afshin Azhir; Shahaboddin Dolatkhah; Noushin A Moghaddam; Mohsen Nasr
Journal:  Adv Biomed Res       Date:  2012-08-28
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.