BACKGROUND: Histologic evaluation of baseline kidney biopsies is an inconsistent tool to predict graft outcomes, which might be assisted by gene expression analysis. METHODS: We evaluated 49 consecutive kidney graft biopsies obtained post-reperfusion in 18 deceased donors (DD) and 31 living donors (LD) at our center. Biopsies were evaluated and scored using Banff criteria. Low-density real-time polymerase chain reaction arrays were used to measure intragraft expression of 95 genes associated with programmed cell death, fibrosis, innate and adaptive immunity and oxidative stress signaling. A pool of 25 normal kidney biopsies was used as control. We applied a stepwise forward selection procedure to build a multiple regression model predicting estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year after transplant using baseline clinical characteristics and gene expression levels. RESULTS: DD grafts displayed a pattern of gene expression remarkably different from LD, including an increased expression of complement protein C3, and chemokines, CXCL1 and CXCL2, consistent with the proinflammatory setting of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. There was no association between any of the reperfusion biopsy histological features and either renal function at 1 year post-transplant or risk of acute rejection. Conversely, older donor age (R(2) = 0.17, P < 0.001) and higher integrin β2 gene expression levels (incremental R(2) versus Donor Age-only model = 0.23, P < 0.001) jointly predicted lower eGFR at 1 year after transplant (multiple regression R(2) = 0.40). Patients with higher ITGβ2 expression levels in baseline biopsies showed lower eGFR, higher levels of proteinuria and more transplant glomerulopathy on the 1-year per-protocol biopsies. CONCLUSION: ITGβ2 gene expression in reperfusion biopsies may represent a prognostic marker for kidney transplant recipients, potentially helpful in shaping patients' treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
BACKGROUND: Histologic evaluation of baseline kidney biopsies is an inconsistent tool to predict graft outcomes, which might be assisted by gene expression analysis. METHODS: We evaluated 49 consecutive kidney graft biopsies obtained post-reperfusion in 18 deceased donors (DD) and 31 living donors (LD) at our center. Biopsies were evaluated and scored using Banff criteria. Low-density real-time polymerase chain reaction arrays were used to measure intragraft expression of 95 genes associated with programmed cell death, fibrosis, innate and adaptive immunity and oxidative stress signaling. A pool of 25 normal kidney biopsies was used as control. We applied a stepwise forward selection procedure to build a multiple regression model predicting estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 1 year after transplant using baseline clinical characteristics and gene expression levels. RESULTS: DD grafts displayed a pattern of gene expression remarkably different from LD, including an increased expression of complement protein C3, and chemokines, CXCL1 and CXCL2, consistent with the proinflammatory setting of ischaemia-reperfusion injury. There was no association between any of the reperfusion biopsy histological features and either renal function at 1 year post-transplant or risk of acute rejection. Conversely, older donor age (R(2) = 0.17, P < 0.001) and higher integrin β2 gene expression levels (incremental R(2) versus Donor Age-only model = 0.23, P < 0.001) jointly predicted lower eGFR at 1 year after transplant (multiple regression R(2) = 0.40). Patients with higher ITGβ2 expression levels in baseline biopsies showed lower eGFR, higher levels of proteinuria and more transplant glomerulopathy on the 1-year per-protocol biopsies. CONCLUSION: ITGβ2 gene expression in reperfusion biopsies may represent a prognostic marker for kidney transplant recipients, potentially helpful in shaping patients' treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Authors: Peter A Lachenbruch; Amy S Rosenberg; Ezio Bonvini; Marc W Cavaillé-Coll; Robert B Colvin Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: P S Randhawa; M I Minervini; M Lombardero; R Duquesnoy; J Fung; R Shapiro; M Jordan; C Vivas; V Scantlebury; A Demetris Journal: Transplantation Date: 2000-04-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Xavier Escofet; Hisham Osman; David F R Griffiths; Suzanna Woydag; W Adam Jurewicz Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Minnie Sarwal; Mei-Sze Chua; Neeraja Kambham; Szu-Chuan Hsieh; Thomas Satterwhite; Marilyn Masek; Oscar Salvatierra Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-07-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander Kainz; Christa Mitterbauer; Peter Hauser; Christoph Schwarz; Heinz M Regele; Gabriela Berlakovich; Gert Mayer; Paul Perco; Bernd Mayer; Timothy W Meyer; Rainer Oberbauer Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Steven C Hoffmann; Robert L Kampen; Shashi Amur; Muhammad A Sharaf; David E Kleiner; Keith Hunter; S John Swanson; Douglas A Hale; Roslyn B Mannon; Patrick J Blair; Allan D Kirk Journal: Transplantation Date: 2002-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: K M Leunissen; F T Bosman; F H Nieman; G Kootstra; M A Vromen; T C Noordzij; J P van Hooff Journal: Transplantation Date: 1989-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Petra Hruba; Zdenek Krejcik; Michaela Dostalova Merkerova; Jiri Klema; Viktor Stranecky; Janka Slatinska; Jana Maluskova; Eva Honsova; Ondrej Viklicky Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 7.561