Taisei Suzuki1, Shigeru Horita2, Koji Kadoya3, Koji Mitsuiki4, Kumi Aita1, Atsumi Harada4, Kosaku Nitta2, Michio Nagata5. 1. Molecular Pathology, Biomolecular and Integrated Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan. 2. Kidney Center, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. 3. The Pathology Department, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Ehime, Japan. 4. The Kidney Center, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Ehime, Japan. 5. Molecular Pathology, Biomolecular and Integrated Medical Sciences, Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennohdai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan. nagatam@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of C4d in the kidney is generally detected particularly for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in renal transplants. In frozen sections of immunofluorescence (IF) staining with anti-C4d monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), we noted intrinsic C4d deposition even in normal glomeruli though their pathogenic or an intrinsic role is unkown. An anti-C4d polyclonal antibody (C4dpAb), which is suitable for paraffin immunoperoxidase (IP) staining, is less used than mAbs, and it has demonstrated that intrinsic C4d is not evident. To establish a stable and reproducible procedure for C4d detection with the C4dpAb and to determine the staining characteristics of it, the present study aimed to test whether the method was comparable with IF with a mAb. METHODS: We compared the C4dpAb with the mAb in adjacent sections of human diseased kidneys, and then compared IP with IF of C4dpAb. Two ways of antigen retrieval was examined for IP. RESULTS: On comparing the two antibodies for glomerular staining with IF, we found that the pattern and intensity (C4dpAb showed intrinsic C4d with IF) were similar. In addition, C4dpAb staining with IP and IF demonstrated that the intrinsic staining in the normal glomerulus was mostly undetectable by IP, whereas IF showed distinct staining. Likewise, C4d deposition with IP in some cases was apparently weaker than that on IF, suggesting that this deposition is not intrinsic but indicates pathogenic complement activation. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of the C4dpAb for immunohistochemistry is of value for reconsidering the role of C4d in glomerular diseases.
BACKGROUND: The presence of C4d in the kidney is generally detected particularly for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in renal transplants. In frozen sections of immunofluorescence (IF) staining with anti-C4d monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), we noted intrinsic C4d deposition even in normal glomeruli though their pathogenic or an intrinsic role is unkown. An anti-C4d polyclonal antibody (C4dpAb), which is suitable for paraffin immunoperoxidase (IP) staining, is less used than mAbs, and it has demonstrated that intrinsic C4d is not evident. To establish a stable and reproducible procedure for C4d detection with the C4dpAb and to determine the staining characteristics of it, the present study aimed to test whether the method was comparable with IF with a mAb. METHODS: We compared the C4dpAb with the mAb in adjacent sections of human diseased kidneys, and then compared IP with IF of C4dpAb. Two ways of antigen retrieval was examined for IP. RESULTS: On comparing the two antibodies for glomerular staining with IF, we found that the pattern and intensity (C4dpAb showed intrinsic C4d with IF) were similar. In addition, C4dpAb staining with IP and IF demonstrated that the intrinsic staining in the normal glomerulus was mostly undetectable by IP, whereas IF showed distinct staining. Likewise, C4d deposition with IP in some cases was apparently weaker than that on IF, suggesting that this deposition is not intrinsic but indicates pathogenic complement activation. CONCLUSIONS: The advantage of the C4dpAb for immunohistochemistry is of value for reconsidering the role of C4d in glomerular diseases.
Authors: Gyongyi M Nadasdy; Cherri Bott; Daniel Cowden; Ronald Pelletier; Ronald Ferguson; Tibor Nadasdy Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2005-10-07 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: I Ohsawa; H Ohi; M Tamano; M Endo; T Fujita; A Satomura; M Hidaka; Y Fuke; M Matsushita; T Fujita Journal: Clin Immunol Date: 2001-10 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Lorraine C Racusen; Robert B Colvin; Kim Solez; Michael J Mihatsch; Philip F Halloran; Patricia M Campbell; Michael J Cecka; Jean-Pierre Cosyns; Anthony J Demetris; Michael C Fishbein; Agnes Fogo; Peter Furness; Ian W Gibson; Denis Glotz; Pekka Hayry; Lawrence Hunsickern; Michael Kashgarian; Ronald Kerman; Alex J Magil; Robert Montgomery; Kunio Morozumi; Volker Nickeleit; Parmjeet Randhawa; Heinz Regele; Daniel Seron; Surya Seshan; Stale Sund; Kiril Trpkov Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jan J Weening; Vivette D D'Agati; Melvin M Schwartz; Surya V Seshan; Charles E Alpers; Gerald B Appel; James E Balow; Jan A Bruijn; Terence Cook; Franco Ferrario; Agnes B Fogo; Ellen M Ginzler; Lee Hebert; Gary Hill; Prue Hill; J Charles Jennette; Norella C Kong; Philippe Lesavre; Michael Lockshin; Lai-Meng Looi; Hirofumi Makino; Luiz A Moura; Michio Nagata Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Mario Espinosa; Rosa Ortega; Marina Sánchez; Alfons Segarra; Maria Teresa Salcedo; Fayna González; Rafael Camacho; Miguel Angel Valdivia; Rocio Cabrera; Katia López; Fernando Pinedo; Eduardo Gutierrez; Alfonso Valera; Miryam Leon; Maria Angeles Cobo; Rosa Rodriguez; Jose Ballarín; Yolanda Arce; Beatriz García; María Dolores Muñoz; Manuel Praga Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Cinthia B Drachenberg; John C Papadimitriou; Preeti Chandra; Abdolreza Haririan; Susan Mendley; Matthew R Weir; Mario F Rubin Journal: Kidney Int Rep Date: 2019-07-30