BACKGROUND: Identification of heart transplant (HTx) rejection currently relies on immunohistology and immunohistochemistry. We aimed to identify specific sets of microRNAs (miRNAs) to characterize acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection (pAMR), and mixed rejection (MR) in monitoring formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs) in HTx patients. METHODS: In this study we selected 33 adult HTx patients. For each, we chose the first positive EMB for study of each type of rejection. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) IonProton technique and reverse transcript quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis were performed on FFPE EMBs. Using logistic regression analysis we created unique miRNA signatures as predictive models of each rejection. In situ PCR was carried out on the same EMBs. RESULTS: We obtained >2,257 mature miRNAs from all the EMBs. The 3 types of rejection showed a different miRNA profile for each group. The logistic regression model formed by miRNAs 208a, 126-5p, and 135a-5p identified MR; that formed by miRNAs 27b-3p, 29b-3p, and 199a-3p identified ACR; and that formed by miRNAs 208a, 29b-3p, 135a-5p, and 144-3p identified pAMR. The expression of miRNAs on tissue, through in situ PCR, showed different expressions of the same miRNA in different rejections. miRNA 126-5p was expressed in endothelial cells in ACR but in cardiomyocytes in pAMR. In ACR, miRNA 29b-3p was significantly overexpressed and detected in fibroblasts, whereas in pAMR it was underexpressed and detected only in cardiomyocytes. CONCLUSIONS: miRNA profiling on FFPE EMBs differentiates the 3 types of rejection. Localization of expression of miRNAs on tissue showed different expression of the same miRNA for different cells, suggesting different roles of the same miRNA in different rejections.
BACKGROUND: Identification of heart transplant (HTx) rejection currently relies on immunohistology and immunohistochemistry. We aimed to identify specific sets of microRNAs (miRNAs) to characterize acute cellular rejection (ACR), antibody-mediated rejection (pAMR), and mixed rejection (MR) in monitoring formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) endomyocardial biopsies (EMBs) in HTx patients. METHODS: In this study we selected 33 adult HTx patients. For each, we chose the first positive EMB for study of each type of rejection. The next-generation sequencing (NGS) IonProton technique and reverse transcript quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis were performed on FFPE EMBs. Using logistic regression analysis we created unique miRNA signatures as predictive models of each rejection. In situ PCR was carried out on the same EMBs. RESULTS: We obtained >2,257 mature miRNAs from all the EMBs. The 3 types of rejection showed a different miRNA profile for each group. The logistic regression model formed by miRNAs 208a, 126-5p, and 135a-5p identified MR; that formed by miRNAs 27b-3p, 29b-3p, and 199a-3p identified ACR; and that formed by miRNAs 208a, 29b-3p, 135a-5p, and 144-3p identified pAMR. The expression of miRNAs on tissue, through in situ PCR, showed different expressions of the same miRNA in different rejections. miRNA 126-5p was expressed in endothelial cells in ACR but in cardiomyocytes in pAMR. In ACR, miRNA 29b-3p was significantly overexpressed and detected in fibroblasts, whereas in pAMR it was underexpressed and detected only in cardiomyocytes. CONCLUSIONS: miRNA profiling on FFPE EMBs differentiates the 3 types of rejection. Localization of expression of miRNAs on tissue showed different expression of the same miRNA for different cells, suggesting different roles of the same miRNA in different rejections.
Authors: Palak Shah; Sean Agbor-Enoh; Pramita Bagchi; Christopher R deFilippi; Angela Mercado; Gouqing Diao; Dave Jp Morales; Keyur B Shah; Samer S Najjar; Erika Feller; Steven Hsu; Maria E Rodrigo; Sabra C Lewsey; Moon Kyoo Jang; Charles Marboe; Gerald J Berry; Kiran K Khush; Hannah A Valantine Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 13.569
Authors: Tereza Nováková; Táňa Macháčková; Jan Novák; Petr Hude; Július Godava; Víta Žampachová; Jan Oppelt; Filip Zlámal; Petr Němec; Helena Bedáňová; Ondřej Slabý; Julie Bienertová-Vašků; Lenka Špinarová; Jan Krejčí Journal: Cells Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 6.600