H S Ciftci1, T Tefik2, M K Savran3, E Demir4, Y Caliskan4, Y D Ogret1, T Oktar2, O Sanlı2, T Kocak2, Y Ozluk5, F S Oguz1, I Kilicaslan5, F Aydın6, A Turkmen4, I Nane2. 1. Department of Medical Biology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. Department of Anesthesia, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 4. Department of Nephrology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. Department of Pathology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of chemokines, CXCL9 and CXCL10, in serum may present a non-invasive detection method for rejection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between urinary levels of CXCL9 and CXCL10 and graft function following renal transplantation. METHODS: 75 living-related donor renal transplant recipients were studied. Urinary levels of chemokines were collected pre-operatively, on post-operative 1st day, 7th day, 1st month, 3rd month, and at the time of rejection. Chemokines levels were assayed using and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Clinical variables were monitored. 10 (15%) patients had biopsy-proven rejection during the follow-up period. The urinary CXCL9 level in those with rejection was significantly higher than that in those with non-rejection group at the 1st day (p<0.001), 7th day (p<0.001), and at the time of rejection (p=0.002). The urinary CXCL10 level was also significantly higher in those with rejection compared with non-rejection group at 1st day (p<0.001), 7th day (p<0.001), and at the time of rejection (p=0.001). Serum creatinine level was strongly correlated with the urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels at the time of rejection (r=0.615, p=0.002; and r=0.519, p=0.022, respectively). Among those with T cell-mediated rejections the mean urinary CXCL10 level increased to as high as 258.12 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels might have a predictive value for T cell-mediated rejection in early post-transplantation period. Measurement of urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels could provide an additional tool for the diagnosis of rejection.
BACKGROUND: Monitoring of chemokines, CXCL9 and CXCL10, in serum may present a non-invasive detection method for rejection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between urinary levels of CXCL9 and CXCL10 and graft function following renal transplantation. METHODS: 75 living-related donor renal transplant recipients were studied. Urinary levels of chemokines were collected pre-operatively, on post-operative 1st day, 7th day, 1st month, 3rd month, and at the time of rejection. Chemokines levels were assayed using and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: Clinical variables were monitored. 10 (15%) patients had biopsy-proven rejection during the follow-up period. The urinary CXCL9 level in those with rejection was significantly higher than that in those with non-rejection group at the 1st day (p<0.001), 7th day (p<0.001), and at the time of rejection (p=0.002). The urinary CXCL10 level was also significantly higher in those with rejection compared with non-rejection group at 1st day (p<0.001), 7th day (p<0.001), and at the time of rejection (p=0.001). Serum creatinine level was strongly correlated with the urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels at the time of rejection (r=0.615, p=0.002; and r=0.519, p=0.022, respectively). Among those with T cell-mediated rejections the mean urinary CXCL10 level increased to as high as 258.12 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels might have a predictive value for T cell-mediated rejection in early post-transplantation period. Measurement of urinary CXCL9 and CXCL10 levels could provide an additional tool for the diagnosis of rejection.
Authors: Elena Lazzeri; Mario Rotondi; Benedetta Mazzinghi; Laura Lasagni; Andrea Buonamano; Alberto Rosati; Fabio Pradella; Vittorio Fossombroni; Giorgio La Villa; Mauro Gacci; Elisabetta Bertoni; Mario Serio; Maurizio Salvadori; Paola Romagnani Journal: Transplantation Date: 2005-05-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: M Matz; J Beyer; D Wunsch; M-F Mashreghi; M Seiler; J Pratschke; N Babel; H-D Volk; P Reinke; K Kotsch Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Turan Kanmaz; Ping Feng; Jose Torrealba; Jean Kwun; John H Fechner; Jacqueline M Schultz; Yinchen Dong; Hyoung Tae Kim; Wasim Dar; Majed M Hamawy; Stuart J Knechtle; Huaizhong Hu Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Gabriele S V Campanella; Benjamin D Medoff; Lindsay A Manice; Richard A Colvin; Andrew D Luster Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2008-01-09 Impact factor: 2.303
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: Huaizhong Hu; Brian D Aizenstein; Alice Puchalski; Jeanine A Burmania; Majed M Hamawy; Stuart J Knechtle Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ulf Panzer; Rüdiger R Reinking; Oliver M Steinmetz; Gunther Zahner; Ulrike Sudbeck; Susanne Fehr; Benjamin Pfalzer; André Schneider; Friedrich Thaiss; Matthias Mack; Stefan Conrad; Hartwig Huland; Udo Helmchen; Rolf A K Stahl Journal: Transplantation Date: 2004-11-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Francesco Guzzi; Luigi Cirillo; Elisa Buti; Francesca Becherucci; Carmela Errichiello; Rosa Maria Roperto; James P Hunter; Paola Romagnani Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 5.923