BACKGROUND: Chemokines and their receptors play a critical role in leukocyte trafficking, and inhibition of select chemokines has been shown to attenuate kidney disease and allograft rejection in animal models. Therefore, we evaluated chemokine and chemokine receptor transcripts in human renal allograft biopsies, correlating transcript levels with clinical course and immunohistochemical analysis to relate chemokine expression to relevant clinical human disease phenotypes. METHODS: Renal biopsies were grouped as postreperfusion (n=10), stable function (n=10), subclinical (n=10) or acute rejection (n=17), or calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity (n=9) based on clinical presentation and histopathologic assessment. Using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis, chemokine transcripts were assessed relative to transcript levels in preprocurement biopsies from live donor kidneys (n=15). RESULTS: Transcripts from several inflammatory chemokines (CCL3, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11) and chemokine receptors (CCR5, CCR7, and CXCR3) were significantly increased in allografts with subclinical and clinical acute rejection, indicating a strong polarization toward a T-helper 1 effector phenotype during rejection. These transcripts also distinguished acutely rejecting allografts from allografts with nonrejection causes of renal dysfunction. Biopsies from patients with stable function without histologic evidence of rejection had increased chemokine transcript levels that were qualitatively similar but quantitatively reduced compared with rejecting allografts. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive evaluation of chemokines and their receptors in human renal transplantation defines associations between chemokine expression and clinical phenotypes, may have diagnostic utility, and highlights relevant pathways for therapeutic intervention.
BACKGROUND: Chemokines and their receptors play a critical role in leukocyte trafficking, and inhibition of select chemokines has been shown to attenuate kidney disease and allograft rejection in animal models. Therefore, we evaluated chemokine and chemokine receptor transcripts in human renal allograft biopsies, correlating transcript levels with clinical course and immunohistochemical analysis to relate chemokine expression to relevant clinical human disease phenotypes. METHODS: Renal biopsies were grouped as postreperfusion (n=10), stable function (n=10), subclinical (n=10) or acute rejection (n=17), or calcineurin inhibitornephrotoxicity (n=9) based on clinical presentation and histopathologic assessment. Using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis, chemokine transcripts were assessed relative to transcript levels in preprocurement biopsies from live donor kidneys (n=15). RESULTS: Transcripts from several inflammatory chemokines (CCL3, CCL5, CXCL9, CXCL10, and CXCL11) and chemokine receptors (CCR5, CCR7, and CXCR3) were significantly increased in allografts with subclinical and clinical acute rejection, indicating a strong polarization toward a T-helper 1 effector phenotype during rejection. These transcripts also distinguished acutely rejecting allografts from allografts with nonrejection causes of renal dysfunction. Biopsies from patients with stable function without histologic evidence of rejection had increased chemokine transcript levels that were qualitatively similar but quantitatively reduced compared with rejecting allografts. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive evaluation of chemokines and their receptors in human renal transplantation defines associations between chemokine expression and clinical phenotypes, may have diagnostic utility, and highlights relevant pathways for therapeutic intervention.
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: Nader M Fahmy; Mohamad H Yamani; Randall C Starling; Norman B Ratliff; James B Young; Patrick M McCarthy; Jingyuan Feng; Andrew C Novick; Robert L Fairchild Journal: Transplantation Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Stuart M Flechner; Sunil M Kurian; Steven R Head; Starlette M Sharp; Thomas C Whisenant; Jie Zhang; Jeffrey D Chismar; Steve Horvath; Tony Mondala; Timothy Gilmartin; Daniel J Cook; Steven A Kay; John R Walker; Daniel R Salomon Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Mario Rotondi; Alberto Rosati; Andrea Buonamano; Laura Lasagni; Elena Lazzeri; Fabio Pradella; Vittorio Fossombroni; Calogero Cirami; Francesco Liotta; Giorgio La Villa; Mario Serio; Elisabetta Bertoni; Maurizio Salvadori; Paola Romagnani Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Kent W Christopherson; Antoinette F Hood; Jeffrey B Travers; Heather Ramsey; Robert A Hromas Journal: Blood Date: 2002-09-26 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Steve Oghumu; Uday Nori; Anna Bracewell; Jianying Zhang; Cherri Bott; Gyongyi M Nadasdy; Sergey V Brodsky; Ronald Pelletier; Abhay R Satoskar; Tibor Nadasdy; Anjali A Satoskar Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: A Hoerning; S Köhler; C Jun; J Lu; J Fu; B Tebbe; S Dolff; T Feldkamp; A Kribben; P F Hoyer; O Witzke Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Mariano J Scian; Daniel G Maluf; Kellie J Archer; Stephen D Turner; Jihee L Suh; Krystle G David; Anne L King; Marc P Posner; Kenneth L Brayman; Valeria R Mas Journal: Transplantation Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 4.939