BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic methods of renal allograft rejection are neither sensitive nor specific. Needle biopsies are invasive and associated with patient morbidity. Thus, it is desirable to develop noninvasive tests to predict and diagnose rejection. METHODS: Using a case-control approach, surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry was used to identify plasma proteins associated with renal allograft rejection. From each rejection patient (n=16), two plasma samples (one near the biopsy date and the other at a time postbiopsy) were compared. Biopsy-confirmed nonrejection patients (n=48) were further analyzed as controls. Antibody-based quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed to validate candidate biomarker apolipoprotein A1 (Apo A1) in a subset of the original and a second cohort of biopsy-confirmed rejection (n=40) and nonrejection (n=70) patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two proteins/peptides showed significant differences between rejection and postrejection samples. Peptides 5191 Da and 4467 Da detected rejection with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. The 4467 Da peptide was identified as the C-terminal fragment of α-1 antichymotrypsin and a 28 kDa protein was determined as Apo A1. Both protein levels were significantly lower at rejection compared with postrejection. Protein levels of nonrejection patients were similar to the postrejection samples. Apo A1 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results showed significantly lower Apo A1 levels (P=0.001 for the original and P=4.14E-11 for the second cohort) at the time of rejection compared with nonrejection which coincides with the SELDI findings. CONCLUSIONS: Together α-1 antichymotrypsin, Apo A1, and the unidentified 5191 Da peptide provide a plasma molecular profile, and this is associated with acute cellular renal allograft rejection.
BACKGROUND: Current diagnostic methods of renal allograft rejection are neither sensitive nor specific. Needle biopsies are invasive and associated with patient morbidity. Thus, it is desirable to develop noninvasive tests to predict and diagnose rejection. METHODS: Using a case-control approach, surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry was used to identify plasma proteins associated with renal allograft rejection. From each rejection patient (n=16), two plasma samples (one near the biopsy date and the other at a time postbiopsy) were compared. Biopsy-confirmed nonrejection patients (n=48) were further analyzed as controls. Antibody-based quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed to validate candidate biomarker apolipoprotein A1 (Apo A1) in a subset of the original and a second cohort of biopsy-confirmed rejection (n=40) and nonrejection (n=70) patients. RESULTS: Twenty-two proteins/peptides showed significant differences between rejection and postrejection samples. Peptides 5191 Da and 4467 Da detected rejection with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. The 4467 Da peptide was identified as the C-terminal fragment of α-1 antichymotrypsin and a 28 kDa protein was determined as Apo A1. Both protein levels were significantly lower at rejection compared with postrejection. Protein levels of nonrejection patients were similar to the postrejection samples. Apo A1 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results showed significantly lower Apo A1 levels (P=0.001 for the original and P=4.14E-11 for the second cohort) at the time of rejection compared with nonrejection which coincides with the SELDI findings. CONCLUSIONS: Together α-1 antichymotrypsin, Apo A1, and the unidentified 5191 Da peptide provide a plasma molecular profile, and this is associated with acute cellular renal allograft rejection.
Authors: B Li; C Hartono; R Ding; V K Sharma; R Ramaswamy; B Qian; D Serur; J Mouradian; J E Schwartz; M Suthanthiran Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stefan Schaub; John Wilkins; Tracey Weiler; Kevin Sangster; David Rush; Peter Nickerson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Judith Y M N Engwegen; Helgi H Helgason; Annemieke Cats; Nathan Harris; Johannes M G Bonfrer; Jan H M Schellens; Jos H Beijnen Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-03-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Maher Albitar; Steven J Potts; Francis J Giles; Susan O'Brien; Michael Keating; Deborah Thomas; Charlotte Clarke; Iman Jilani; Christine Aguilar; Elihu Estey; Hagop Kantarjian Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
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: George R Hsieh; Gabriel T Schnickel; Consuelo Garcia; Ali Shefizadeh; Michael C Fishbein; Abbas Ardehali Journal: Transplantation Date: 2007-07-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jessica L Turnier; Hermine I Brunner; Michael Bennett; Ashwaq Aleed; Gaurav Gulati; Wendy D Haffey; Sherry Thornton; Michael Wagner; Prasad Devarajan; David Witte; Kenneth D Greis; Bruce Aronow Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: John F Timms; Elif Arslan-Low; Musarat Kabir; Jenny Worthington; Stephane Camuzeaux; John Sinclair; Joanna Szaub; Babak Afrough; Vladimir N Podust; Evangelia-Ourania Fourkala; Myriam Cubizolles; Florian Kronenberg; Eric T Fung; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Usha Menon; Ian Jacobs Journal: Proteomics Clin Appl Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 3.494