| Literature DB >> 24788560 |
Xiaobo Yu1, Bajin Wei2, Yifan Dai1, Min Zhang2, Jian Wu2, Xiao Xu2, Guoping Jiang2, Shusen Zheng2, Lin Zhou1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although liver transplantation is one of the most efficient curative therapies of end stage liver diseases, recipients may suffer liver graft loss opst-operation. IRF-5, a member of Interferon Regulatory Factors, functions as a key regulator in TLR4 cascade, and is capable of inducing inflammatory cytokines. Although TLR4 has been proved to contribute to acute allograft rejection, including after liver transplantation, the correlation between IRF5 gene and acute rejection has not been elucidated yet.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24788560 PMCID: PMC4005731 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094426
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics and primary diagnosis of 289 liver transplantation recipients assigned to a non-rejection or acute rejection group.
| Non-rejection | Acute Rejection |
| |
| Age (year) | 13–71 | 31–71 | NA |
| Sex | 0.6234 | ||
| Male | 215 (86.0%) | 35 (89.7%) | |
| Female | 35 (14.0%) | 4 (10.3%) | |
| MELD Score | 0.1945 | ||
| <10 | 41 (16.4%) | 11 (28.2%) | |
| 10–19 | 94 (37.6%) | 11 (28.2%) | |
| 20–29 | 77 (30.8%) | 9 (23.1%) | |
| >29 | 38 (15.2%) | 8 (20.5%) | |
| Primary diagnosis | |||
| HBV infection | 148 (59.2%) | 30 (76.9%) | 0.0351 |
| 102 (40.8%) | 9 (23.1%) | ||
| HCC | 99 (39.6%) | 15 (38.5%) | 1.000 |
| 151 (60.4%) | 24 (61.5%) | ||
| Fulminant hepatitis | 49 (19.6%) | 8 (20.5%) | 0.8320 |
| 201 (80.4%) | 31 (79.5%) | ||
| Decompensated liver cirrhosis | 142 (56.8%) | 20 (51.3%) | 0.6035 |
| 108 (43.2%) | 19 (48.7%) |
MELD, model for end-stage liver disease; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NA, not applicable.
Association of genetic polymorphism of IRF5 with acute rejection.
| SNPs of IRF5 | Genetic Model | Non-rejection | Acute Rejection | OR (95% CI) |
|
| rs3757385 | |||||
| T/T | Cod | 105 (42.0%) | 11 (28.2%) | 1.00 | 0.078 |
| G/T | 109 (43.6%) | 17 (43.6%) | 1.49 (0.67–3.33) | ||
| G/G | 36 (14.4%) | 11 (28.2%) | 2.92 (1.17–7.30) | ||
| T/T | Do | 105 (42.0%) | 11 (28.2%) | 1.00 | 0.096 |
| G/T+G/G | 145 (58.0%) | 28 (71.8%) | 1.84 (0.88–3.87) | ||
| T/T+G/T | Re | 214 (85.6%) | 28 (71.8%) | 1.00 | 0.042 |
| G/G | 36 (14.4%) | 11 (28.2%) | 2.34 (1.07–5.10) | ||
| T/T+G/G | Ovd | 141 (56.4%) | 22 (56.4%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G/T | 109 (43.6%) | 17 (43.6%) | 1.00 (0.51–1.97) | ||
| rs752637 | |||||
| T/T | Cod | 105 (42.0%) | 12 (30.8%) | 1.00 | 0.14 |
| C/T | 111 (44.4%) | 17 (43.6%) | 1.34 (0.61–2.94) | ||
| C/C | 34 (13.6%) | 10 (25.6%) | 2.57 (1.02–6.48) | ||
| T/T | Do | 105 (42.0%) | 12 (30.8%) | 1.00 | 0.18 |
| C/T+C/C | 145 (58.0%) | 27 (69.2%) | 1.63 (0.79–3.36) | ||
| T/T+C/T | Re | 216 (86.4%) | 29 (74.4%) | 1.00 | 0.067 |
| C/C | 34 (13.6%) | 10 (25.6%) | 2.19 (0.98–4.90) | ||
| T/T+C/C | Ovd | 139 (55.6%) | 22 (56.4%) | 1.00 | 0.92 |
| C/T | 111 (44.4%) | 13 (43.6%) | 0.97 (0.49–1.91) | ||
| rs11761199 | |||||
| A/A | Cod | 105 (42.0%) | 11 (28.2%) | 1.00 | 0.25 |
| A/G | 111 (44.4%) | 21 (53.9%) | 1.81 (0.83–3.93) | ||
| G/G | 34 (13.6%) | 7 (17.9%) | 1.97 (0.71–5.47) | ||
| A/A | Do | 105 (42.0%) | 11 (28.2%) | 1.00 | 0.096 |
| A/G+G/G | 145 (58.0%) | 28 (71.8%) | 1.84 (0.88–3.87) | ||
| A/A+A/G | Re | 216 (86.4%) | 32 (82.1%) | 1.00 | 0.48 |
| G/G | 34 (13.6%) | 7 (17.9%) | 1.39 (0.59–3.40) | ||
| A/A+G/G | Ovd | 139 (55.6%) | 18 (46.1%) | 1.00 | 0.27 |
| A/G | 111 (44.4%) | 21 (53.9%) | 1.46 (0.74–2.34) |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence intervals.
Cod, codominant; Do, dominant; Re, recessive; Ovd, overdominant.
Figure 1The linkage disequilibrium among 3 SNPs.
1 to 3 represented rs3757385, rs752637 and rs11761199 respectively, and rs3757385 and rs752637 formed a haplotype block by LD analysis.
Association of IRF5 Haplotype with acute rejection.
| SNPs combination | Non-rejection | Acute Rejection | OR (95% CI) |
|
| rs3757385 + rs752637 | ||||
| T-T | 308 (61.6%) | 48 (61.5%) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| G-C | 185 (37.0%) | 28 (35.9%) | 0.97 (0.59–1.60) |
Figure 2Acute rejection comparisons among SNP groups.
Comparison of survival curves among SNP groups.
| SNPs of IRF5 |
| HR (95% CI) |
| rs3757385 | ||
| T/T vs. G/T vs. G/G | 0.075 | NA |
| T/T vs. G/T + G/G | 0.102 | 0.56 (0.31–1.11) |
| G/T vs. T/T + G/G | 0.079 | 1.95 (0.93–4.12) |
| G/G vs. T/T + G/T | 0.038 | 2.06 (1.05–5.82) |
| rs752637 | ||
| T/T vs. C/T vs. C/C | 0.13 | NA |
| T/T vs. C/T + C/C | 0.18 | 0.63 (0.34–1.22) |
| C/T vs. T/T + C/C | 0.97 | 0.99 (0.53–1.86) |
| C/C vs. T/T + C/T | 0.057 | 1.98 (0.98–5.72) |
| rs11761199 | ||
| G/G vs. A/G vs. A/A | 0.25 | NA |
| G/G vs. A/A + A/G | 0.46 | 1.36 (0.57–3.48) |
| A/G vs. A/A + G/G | 0.26 | 1.43 (0.77–2.70) |
| A/A vs. A/G + G/G | 0.098 | 0.56 (0.31–1.10) |
HR, hazard ratio.
Figure 3mRNA expression level of IRF5 in PBMC.
We performed real-time qPCR to detect the mRNA expression of IRF5 in the PBMC of a total of 104 recipients, of whom the rejection had not been observed within 6 months post-operation.