OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk of developing acute rejection, allograft fibrosis, and antibody-mediated rejection, a retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent liver transplant between July 31, 1998 and February 29, 2016 and had donor-specific antibodies measured at time of liver biopsy was undertaken. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HLAMatchmaker Software (http://www.hlamatchmaker.net) was used to define epitope mismatches between donors and recipients and to predict de novo donor-specific antibody risk. Epitope mismatches were evaluated for their immunogenicity. RESULTS: In our group of 42 recipients, 20 (48%) had donor-specific antibodies. Having an antibody against HLA-DQB1*02 was associated with acute rejection (66.6% vs 36%; P = .024). We found that DQ epitope mismatch load was greater in recipients with class II donor-specific antibodies (9.7 vs 3.6; P = .001). HLA-DQ (7.4 vs 3.6; P = .04) and HLA-DR (8.8 vs 3.8; P = .04) epitope mismatch loads were higher in recipients with DQ + DR donor-specific antibodies. A high portal fibrosis score was associated with higher mismatch load at the DQ locus (P = .005) and DQ + DR loci (P = .03). Having > 5 or > 6 epitope mismatch loads at the DQ locus identified a threshold above which development of DQ donor-specific antibodies would occur (area under the curve = 0.878). Mismatches for eplet 4Q, 45GE, 52PQ, and 52PL, thought to be immunodominant epitopes, were observed for several recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of epitope mismatches between recipients and donors may aid transplant physicians in devising immunosuppression strategies.
OBJECTIVES: To identify the risk of developing acute rejection, allograft fibrosis, and antibody-mediated rejection, a retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent liver transplant between July 31, 1998 and February 29, 2016 and had donor-specific antibodies measured at time of liver biopsy was undertaken. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HLAMatchmaker Software (http://www.hlamatchmaker.net) was used to define epitope mismatches between donors and recipients and to predict de novo donor-specific antibody risk. Epitope mismatches were evaluated for their immunogenicity. RESULTS: In our group of 42 recipients, 20 (48%) had donor-specific antibodies. Having an antibody against HLA-DQB1*02 was associated with acute rejection (66.6% vs 36%; P = .024). We found that DQ epitope mismatch load was greater in recipients with class II donor-specific antibodies (9.7 vs 3.6; P = .001). HLA-DQ (7.4 vs 3.6; P = .04) and HLA-DR (8.8 vs 3.8; P = .04) epitope mismatch loads were higher in recipients with DQ + DR donor-specific antibodies. A high portal fibrosis score was associated with higher mismatch load at the DQ locus (P = .005) and DQ + DR loci (P = .03). Having > 5 or > 6 epitope mismatch loads at the DQ locus identified a threshold above which development of DQ donor-specific antibodies would occur (area under the curve = 0.878). Mismatches for eplet 4Q, 45GE, 52PQ, and 52PL, thought to be immunodominant epitopes, were observed for several recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of epitope mismatches between recipients and donors may aid transplant physicians in devising immunosuppression strategies.
Authors: Rosa G M Lammerts; Dania Altulea; Bouke G Hepkema; Jan-Stephan Sanders; Jacob van den Born; Stefan P Berger Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Gautam Kok; Monique M A Verstegen; Roderick H J Houwen; Edward E S Nieuwenhuis; Herold J Metselaar; Wojciech G Polak; Luc J W van der Laan; Eric Spierings; Caroline M den Hoed; Sabine A Fuchs Journal: Liver Transpl Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 6.112