William S Oetting1, Weihua Guan, David P Schladt, Winston A Wildebush, Jennifer Becker, Bharat Thyagarajan, Pamala A Jacobson, Arthur J Matas, Ajay K Israni. 1. 1 College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 2 Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 3 Department of Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 4 Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Minneapolis, MN. 5 Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, MN. 6 Department of Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 7 Address correspondence to: William S. Oetting, Ph.D., Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A biological marker that would allow clinicians to determine the length of time an allograft will remain functional after transplantation would greatly aid the ability to stratify donors by risk and to use biologically "young" allografts in young recipients, maximizing the use of this rare resource. Telomere length (TL) has been proposed to be such a marker to determine the biological age of a tissue. METHODS: We genotyped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association of TL with acute rejection (AR), chronic graft dysfunction (CGD), and graft failure of kidney allografts. DNA was isolated from peripheral blood white blood cells and TL was measured in DNA using the multiplexed monochrome quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULTS: As has been previously shown, we found a significant association between log-transformed TL and donor age (P=3.8×10) and recipient age (P=5.6×10). Univariate and multivariate analysis did not show any significant associations between log-transformed TL in donor or recipient DNA with AR, CGD, or graft failure, although we did observe an association between donor chronological age and CGD (P=0.018). CONCLUSION: Although older allografts have been shown to be at greater risk for AR and CGD, this does not appear to be associated with shorter TL. Different markers will need to be identified to determine how biological age impacts transplant outcome, such as age-related fibrosis or tubular atrophy and tubular loss.
BACKGROUND: A biological marker that would allow clinicians to determine the length of time an allograft will remain functional after transplantation would greatly aid the ability to stratify donors by risk and to use biologically "young" allografts in young recipients, maximizing the use of this rare resource. Telomere length (TL) has been proposed to be such a marker to determine the biological age of a tissue. METHODS: We genotyped DNA from 1805 recipients and 1038 living kidney donors for TL to determine the association of TL with acute rejection (AR), chronic graft dysfunction (CGD), and graft failure of kidney allografts. DNA was isolated from peripheral blood white blood cells and TL was measured in DNA using the multiplexed monochrome quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay. RESULTS: As has been previously shown, we found a significant association between log-transformed TL and donor age (P=3.8×10) and recipient age (P=5.6×10). Univariate and multivariate analysis did not show any significant associations between log-transformed TL in donor or recipient DNA with AR, CGD, or graft failure, although we did observe an association between donor chronological age and CGD (P=0.018). CONCLUSION: Although older allografts have been shown to be at greater risk for AR and CGD, this does not appear to be associated with shorter TL. Different markers will need to be identified to determine how biological age impacts transplant outcome, such as age-related fibrosis or tubular atrophy and tubular loss.
Authors: A Dei Cas; V Spigoni; L Franzini; M Preti; D Ardigò; E Derlindati; M Metra; L D Monti; P Dell'Era; L Gnudi; I Zavaroni Journal: Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis Date: 2011-08-06 Impact factor: 4.222
Authors: Mohammad Saatchi; Jalal Poorolajal; Mohammad Ali Amirzargar; Hossein Mahjub; Nader Esmailnasab Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2013-04-05 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Nisha Bansal; Mary A Whooley; Mathilda Regan; Charles E McCulloch; Joachim H Ix; Elissa Epel; Elizabeth Blackburn; Jue Lin; Chi-Yuan Hsu Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Wai H Lim; Philip Clayton; Germaine Wong; Scott B Campbell; Solomon Cohney; Graeme R Russ; Steve J Chadban; Stephen P McDonald Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Marta Jackowska; Mark Hamer; Livia A Carvalho; Jorge D Erusalimsky; Lee Butcher; Andrew Steptoe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Karolina Kłoda; Artur Mierzecki; Leszek Domański; Ewa Borowiecka; Krzysztof Safranow; Andrzej Ciechanowicz; Kazimierz Ciechanowski Journal: Med Sci Monit Date: 2017-04-14
Authors: Burç Dedeoglu; Ruud W J Meijers; Mariska Klepper; Dennis A Hesselink; Carla C Baan; Nicolle H R Litjens; Michiel G H Betjes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 3.240