Philip F Halloran1,2, Jeff Reeve1,3, Arezu Z Aliabadi4, Martin Cadeiras5, Marisa G Crespo-Leiro6, Mario Deng5, Eugene C Depasquale5, Johannes Goekler4, Xavier Jouven7, Daniel H Kim3, Jon Kobashigawa8, Alexandre Loupy9, Peter Macdonald10, Luciano Potena11, Andreas Zuckermann4, Michael D Parkes1. 1. Alberta Transplant Applied Genomics Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 4. Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. 6. Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain. 7. Paris Transplant Group, Paris, France. 8. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calfornia, USA. 9. Hôpital Necker, Paris, France. 10. The Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, Australia. 11. Cardiovascular Department, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because injury is universal in organ transplantation, heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies present an opportunity to explore response to injury in heart parenchyma. Histology has limited ability to assess injury, potentially confusing it with rejection, whereas molecular changes have potential to distinguish injury from rejection. Building on previous studies of transcripts associated with T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), we explored transcripts reflecting injury. METHODS: Microarray data from 889 prospectively collected endomyocardial biopsies from 454 transplant recipients at 14 centers were subjected to unsupervised principal component analysis and archetypal analysis to detect variation not explained by rejection. The resulting principal component and archetype scores were then examined for their transcript, transcript set, and pathway associations and compared to the histology diagnoses and left ventricular function. RESULTS: Rejection was reflected by principal components PC1 and PC2, and by archetype scores S2TCMR, and S3ABMR, with S1normal indicating normalness. PC3 and a new archetype score, S4injury, identified unexplained variation correlating with expression of transcripts inducible in injury models, many expressed in macrophages and associated with inflammation in pathway analysis. S4injury scores were high in recent transplants, reflecting donation-implantation injury, and both S4injury and S2TCMR were associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Assessment of injury is necessary for accurate estimates of rejection and for understanding heart transplant phenotypes. Biopsies with molecular injury but no molecular rejection were often misdiagnosed rejection by histology.TRAIL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02670408FUNDING. Roche Organ Transplant Research Foundation, the University of Alberta Hospital Foundation, and Alberta Health Services.
BACKGROUND: Because injury is universal in organ transplantation, heart transplant endomyocardial biopsies present an opportunity to explore response to injury in heart parenchyma. Histology has limited ability to assess injury, potentially confusing it with rejection, whereas molecular changes have potential to distinguish injury from rejection. Building on previous studies of transcripts associated with T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR), we explored transcripts reflecting injury. METHODS: Microarray data from 889 prospectively collected endomyocardial biopsies from 454 transplant recipients at 14 centers were subjected to unsupervised principal component analysis and archetypal analysis to detect variation not explained by rejection. The resulting principal component and archetype scores were then examined for their transcript, transcript set, and pathway associations and compared to the histology diagnoses and left ventricular function. RESULTS: Rejection was reflected by principal components PC1 and PC2, and by archetype scores S2TCMR, and S3ABMR, with S1normal indicating normalness. PC3 and a new archetype score, S4injury, identified unexplained variation correlating with expression of transcripts inducible in injury models, many expressed in macrophages and associated with inflammation in pathway analysis. S4injury scores were high in recent transplants, reflecting donation-implantation injury, and both S4injury and S2TCMR were associated with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. CONCLUSION: Assessment of injury is necessary for accurate estimates of rejection and for understanding heart transplant phenotypes. Biopsies with molecular injury but no molecular rejection were often misdiagnosed rejection by histology.TRAIL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02670408FUNDING. Roche Organ Transplant Research Foundation, the University of Alberta Hospital Foundation, and Alberta Health Services.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cardiology; Innate immunity; Molecular diagnosis; Organ transplantation; Transplantation
Authors: Susan Stewart; Gayle L Winters; Michael C Fishbein; Henry D Tazelaar; Jon Kobashigawa; Jacki Abrams; Claus B Andersen; Annalisa Angelini; Gerald J Berry; Margaret M Burke; Anthony J Demetris; Elizabeth Hammond; Silviu Itescu; Charles C Marboe; Bruce McManus; Elaine F Reed; Nancy L Reinsmoen; E Rene Rodriguez; Alan G Rose; Marlene Rose; Nicole Suciu-Focia; Adriana Zeevi; Margaret E Billingham Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2005-06-20 Impact factor: 10.247
Authors: Philip F Halloran; Jessica Chang; Konrad Famulski; Luis G Hidalgo; Israel D R Salazar; Maribel Merino Lopez; Arthur Matas; Michael Picton; Declan de Freitas; Jonathan Bromberg; Daniel Serón; Joana Sellarés; Gunilla Einecke; Jeff Reeve Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Wolfram J Jabs; Annette Sedlmeyer; Vido Ramassar; Luis G Hidalgo; Joan Urmson; Marjan Afrouzian; Lin-Fu Zhu; Philip F Halloran Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: P Bruneval; A Angelini; D Miller; L Potena; A Loupy; A Zeevi; E F Reed; D Dragun; N Reinsmoen; R N Smith; L West; S Tebutt; T Thum; M Haas; M Mengel; P Revelo; M Fedrigo; J P Duong Van Huyen; G J Berry Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-12-12 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Jana Lipkova; Tiffany Y Chen; Ming Y Lu; Richard J Chen; Maha Shady; Mane Williams; Jingwen Wang; Zahra Noor; Richard N Mitchell; Mehmet Turan; Gulfize Coskun; Funda Yilmaz; Derya Demir; Deniz Nart; Kayhan Basak; Nesrin Turhan; Selvinaz Ozkara; Yara Banz; Katja E Odening; Faisal Mahmood Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Benjamin S Mantell; Hector Cordero; Sarah B See; Kevin J Clerkin; Rodica Vasilescu; Charles C Marboe; Yoshifumi Naka; Susan Restaino; Paolo C Colombo; Linda J Addonizio; Maryjane A Farr; Emmanuel Zorn Journal: J Heart Lung Transplant Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 10.247