BACKGROUND: The lack of reliable human proxies for minor (ie, non-HLA) histocompatibility loci hampers the ability to leverage these factors toward improving transplant outcomes. Despite conflicting reports of the effect of donor-recipient sex mismatch on renal allografts, the association between acute rejection of renal allografts and the development of human alloantibodies to the male H-Y antigen suggested to us that donor-recipient sex mismatch deserved re-evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the relationships between donor sex and allograft failure differed by recipient sex. METHODS: We studied recipients of deceased-donor (n = 125,369) and living-donor (n = 63,139) transplants in the United States Renal Data System. Using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by donor type, we estimated the association between donor-recipient sex mismatch and death-censored allograft failure with adjustment for known risk factors, with and without the use of multiple imputation methods to account for potential bias and/or loss of efficiency due to missing data. RESULTS: The advantage afforded by male donor kidneys was more pronounced among male than among female recipients (8% vs 2% relative risk reduction; interaction P < 0.01). This difference is of the order of magnitude of several other risk factors affecting donor selection decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Donor-recipient sex mismatch affects renal allograft survival in a direction consistent with immune responses to sexually determined minor histocompatibility antigens. Our study provides a paradigm for clinical detection of markers for minor histocompatibility loci.
BACKGROUND: The lack of reliable human proxies for minor (ie, non-HLA) histocompatibility loci hampers the ability to leverage these factors toward improving transplant outcomes. Despite conflicting reports of the effect of donor-recipient sex mismatch on renal allografts, the association between acute rejection of renal allografts and the development of human alloantibodies to the male H-Y antigen suggested to us that donor-recipient sex mismatch deserved re-evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the relationships between donor sex and allograft failure differed by recipient sex. METHODS: We studied recipients of deceased-donor (n = 125,369) and living-donor (n = 63,139) transplants in the United States Renal Data System. Using Cox proportional hazards models stratified by donor type, we estimated the association between donor-recipient sex mismatch and death-censored allograft failure with adjustment for known risk factors, with and without the use of multiple imputation methods to account for potential bias and/or loss of efficiency due to missing data. RESULTS: The advantage afforded by male donor kidneys was more pronounced among male than among female recipients (8% vs 2% relative risk reduction; interaction P < 0.01). This difference is of the order of magnitude of several other risk factors affecting donor selection decisions. CONCLUSIONS:Donor-recipient sex mismatch affects renal allograft survival in a direction consistent with immune responses to sexually determined minor histocompatibility antigens. Our study provides a paradigm for clinical detection of markers for minor histocompatibility loci.
Authors: Jacobien C Verhave; Ron T Gansevoort; Hans L Hillege; Dick De Zeeuw; Gary C Curhan; Paul E De Jong Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Jane C Tan; Stephan Busque; Biruh Workeneh; Bing Ho; Geraldine Derby; Kristina L Blouch; F Graham Sommer; Byard Edwards; Bryan D Myers Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2010-05-12 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Wendy E Hoy; Rebecca N Douglas-Denton; Michael D Hughson; Alan Cass; Kelli Johnson; John F Bertram Journal: Kidney Int Suppl Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 10.545
Authors: Valarie B Ashby; Alan B Leichtman; Michael A Rees; Peter X-K Song; Mathieu Bray; Wen Wang; John D Kalbfleisch Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Yun R Li; Jessica van Setten; Shefali S Verma; Yontao Lu; Michael V Holmes; Hui Gao; Monkol Lek; Nikhil Nair; Hareesh Chandrupatla; Baoli Chang; Konrad J Karczewski; Chanel Wong; Maede Mohebnasab; Eyas Mukhtar; Randy Phillips; Vinicius Tragante; Cuiping Hou; Laura Steel; Takesha Lee; James Garifallou; Toumy Guettouche; Hongzhi Cao; Weihua Guan; Aubree Himes; Jacob van Houten; Andrew Pasquier; Reina Yu; Elena Carrigan; Michael B Miller; David Schladt; Abdullah Akdere; Ana Gonzalez; Kelsey M Llyod; Daniel McGinn; Abhinav Gangasani; Zach Michaud; Abigail Colasacco; James Snyder; Kelly Thomas; Tiancheng Wang; Baolin Wu; Alhusain J Alzahrani; Amein K Al-Ali; Fahad A Al-Muhanna; Abdullah M Al-Rubaish; Samir Al-Mueilo; Dimitri S Monos; Barbara Murphy; Kim M Olthoff; Cisca Wijmenga; Teresa Webster; Malek Kamoun; Suganthi Balasubramanian; Matthew B Lanktree; William S Oetting; Pablo Garcia-Pavia; Daniel G MacArthur; Paul I W de Bakker; Hakon Hakonarson; Kelly A Birdwell; Pamala A Jacobson; Marylyn D Ritchie; Folkert W Asselbergs; Ajay K Israni; Abraham Shaked; Brendan J Keating Journal: Genome Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Erika Vieira Almeida e Santiago; Micheline Rosa Silveira; Vânia Eloisa de Araújo; Katia de Paula Farah; Francisco de Assis Acurcio; Maria das Graças Braga Ceccato Journal: Rev Saude Publica Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 2.106
Authors: Maria Gerbase-DeLima; Renato de Marco; Franscisco Monteiro; Hélio Tedesco-Silva; José O Medina-Pestana; Karina L Mine Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Janina Müller-Deile; Jan Hinrich Bräsen; Marion Pollheimer; Manfred Ratschek; Hermann Haller; Lars Pape; Mario Schiffer Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2017-09-05