Sobhana Mahakur1, Biman Saikia2, Mukut Minz3, Ranjana W Minz1, Ritambhra Nada4, Shashi Anand1, Ashish Sharma3, Vivekanand Jha5, Neha Joshi1, Lekha Goel1, Amit Arora6, Kusum Joshi4. 1. Department of Immunopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. 2. Department of Immunopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. bimansaikia@gmail.com. 3. Department of Renal Transplant Surgery, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 4. Department of Histopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 5. Department of Nephrology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 6. Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ability to predict the manner in which a recipient's immune system would respond to a transplanted graft by analyzing cytokine profiles of the "allograft antigen sensitized" recipient lymphocytes in vitro might provide a means to identify patients at risk to adverse clinical endpoints. METHODS: Cytokine/chemokine gene expression profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells co-cultured with allograft antigen-pulsed macrophages were studied in 49 renal transplant recipients-12 with acute cellular rejection (ACR) with or without antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), 7 with AMR (without ACR), and 30 with stable allografts (SA). An 86-gene inflammatory cytokines and receptors PCR array was used to measure fold changes in gene expression between pulsed and un-pulsed cultures. RESULTS: On linear discriminant analysis and multivariate analysis of variance, a gene set comprising C3, CCL3, IL1B, TOLLIP, IL10, CXCL5, ABCF1, CCR3, IL10RB, CXCL1, and IL1R1 differentiated the ACR-AMR from the SA group. Similarly, a gene set comprising IL10, C3, IL37, IL1B, CCL3, CARD18, and TOLLIP differentiated the AMR from the SA group. No significant difference was found between the ACR-AMR vs AMR groups. CONCLUSION: Distinct post in vitro stimulation cytokine profiles at the time of transplantation thus correlated with the occurrence of post-transplantation rejection episodes which indicated feasibility of this in vitro model to assess the recipient's anti-graft response at an early stage.
BACKGROUND: Ability to predict the manner in which a recipient's immune system would respond to a transplanted graft by analyzing cytokine profiles of the "allograft antigen sensitized" recipient lymphocytes in vitro might provide a means to identify patients at risk to adverse clinical endpoints. METHODS: Cytokine/chemokine gene expression profiles of peripheral blood mononuclear cells co-cultured with allograft antigen-pulsed macrophages were studied in 49 renal transplant recipients-12 with acute cellular rejection (ACR) with or without antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), 7 with AMR (without ACR), and 30 with stable allografts (SA). An 86-gene inflammatory cytokines and receptors PCR array was used to measure fold changes in gene expression between pulsed and un-pulsed cultures. RESULTS: On linear discriminant analysis and multivariate analysis of variance, a gene set comprising C3, CCL3, IL1B, TOLLIP, IL10, CXCL5, ABCF1, CCR3, IL10RB, CXCL1, and IL1R1 differentiated the ACR-AMR from the SA group. Similarly, a gene set comprising IL10, C3, IL37, IL1B, CCL3, CARD18, and TOLLIP differentiated the AMR from the SA group. No significant difference was found between the ACR-AMR vs AMR groups. CONCLUSION: Distinct post in vitro stimulation cytokine profiles at the time of transplantation thus correlated with the occurrence of post-transplantation rejection episodes which indicated feasibility of this in vitro model to assess the recipient's anti-graft response at an early stage.
Authors: Yingyos Avihingsanon; Naili Ma; Martha Pavlakis; W James Chon; Marc E Uknis; Anthony P Monaco; Christiane Ferran; Isaac Stillman; Asher D Schachter; Christina Mottley; Xin Xiao Zheng; Terry B Strom Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-05-11 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Pierre Saint-Mezard; Céline C Berthier; Hai Zhang; Alexandre Hertig; Sergio Kaiser; Martin Schumacher; Grazyna Wieczorek; Marc Bigaud; Jeanne Kehren; Eric Rondeau; Friedrich Raulf; Hans-Peter Marti Journal: Transpl Int Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 3.782
Authors: J Strehlau; M Pavlakis; M Lipman; M Shapiro; L Vasconcellos; W Harmon; T B Strom Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1997-01-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Denise J Lo; Tim A Weaver; David E Kleiner; Roslyn B Mannon; Lynn M Jacobson; Bryan N Becker; S John Swanson; Douglas A Hale; Allan D Kirk Journal: Transplantation Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 4.939
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: Marek Cernoch; Petra Hruba; Marek Kollar; Petra Mrazova; Lucia Stranavova; Alena Lodererova; Eva Honsova; Ondrej Viklicky Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.561