The utility of urinary biomarker panel in predicting renal pathology and treatment response in Chinese lupus nephritis patients.

Given the urgent need for non-invasive biomarkers of LN, we aim to identify novel urinary biomarkers that facilitate diagnosis, assessment of disease activity and prediction of treatment response in a retrospective SLE cohort. A total of 154 SLE patients and 55 healthy controls were enrolled, among whom 73 were active LN patients. We measured renal activity by renal SLEDAI. The treatment response of the active LN patients who finished 6-month induction therapy was assessed based on the American College of Rheumatology response criteria. The expression levels of 10 urinary biomarkers (UBMs): β2-MG, calbindin D, cystatin C, IL-18, KIM-1, MCP-1, nephrin, NGAL, VCAM-1, and VDBP were tested using Luminex high-throughput proteomics technology. All but urinary nephrin levels were significantly increased in active LN compared to healthy controls. uCystatinC, uMCP-1, uKIM-1 levels were significantly higher in active LN group compared to inactive LN group. Correlation analysis revealed positive correlation between uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uMCP-1, uNGAL, uVDBP and RSLEDAI score. In renal pathology, uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uVCAM-1, and uVDBP positively correlated with activity index (AI) while uVCAM-1 positively correlated with chronicity index (CI). Moreover, the combination of uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, uKIM-1 discriminated proliferative LN from membranous LN with an AUC of 0.80 (95%CI: 0.69-0.90). Most importantly, baseline uNGAL demonstrated good prediction ability to discriminate responders from non-responders in active LN patients after 6-month induction therapy. Using a multiplex bead technique, we have identified the combination of uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, uKIM-1 as a biomarker panel to reflect renal pathology and NGAL as a promising urinary biomarker to both reflect disease activity and predict treatment response.

Introduction

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a complex systemic autoimmune disease with unknown etiology. Lupus nephritis (LN) is one of most common organ involvements, affecting more than 60% of SLE patients during their disease courses [1, 2]. Despite aggressive immunosuppression therapy, LN is still the major predictor of prognosis and an important driver of morbidity and mortality in SLE [3]. Moreover, SLE patients with glomerulonephritis have a significantly decreased health related life quality as well as working ability [4]. Although renal biopsy remains the gold standards of making the diagnosis, guiding the treatment, and predicting prognosis in LN patients, the invasive nature and associated risks have limited its use, especially in the follow-up stage [5]. On the other hand, conventional biomarkers, like proteinuria, anti-dsDNA antibody and complement, are neither sensitive nor specific in predicting renal activity in LN patients [6]. There is an urgent need for non-invasive biomarkers to reflect renal activity, predict renal prognosis and ultimately guide the treatment of LN.

The past decade has witnessed a notable progress in the identification and validation of biomarkers of LN. An increasing number of researchers have focused on identifying biomarkers of LN from urine due to its availability through noninvasive collection and direct reflection of what’s going on in the kidney. With the development of high-throughput technology, the strategy of biomarker discovery has changed. Previous studies have identified a variety of urinary markers of LN in both adult and pediatric patients through different strategies, including monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) [7, 8], TNF-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK) [9], neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) [7, 8], and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM) [7, 10].

Although the previous described urinary biomarkers (UBMs) has been validated widely, it is believed that a single biomarker may not be sufficient for clinical application in lupus nephritis. Previous validation studies on LN urine biomarkers largely focused on limited number (usually less than five) of markers. In this study, we aim to use a more sensitive multiplex technology to simultaneously quantitate ten potential UBMs and establish the potential role of urine protein biomarker panel in reflecting disease activity and predicting treatment response in LN patients. The ten proteins we selected are beta-2 microglobulin (β2-MG), calbindin D, cystatin C, IL-18, kidney injury molecule 1 (KIM-1), monocyte chemoattractant protein 1 (MCP-1), nephrin, neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1), and vitamin D-binding protein (VDBP).

Materials and methods

Study population

In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 154 SLE patients (94% women) above 18 years of age from Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine were recruited from August 1, 2016 to August 1, 2018, including 73 active LN, 32 inactive LN, 49 non-renal SLE. 55 age and gender matched healthy individuals were recruited as controls. All patients fulfilled the 1997 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for SLE [11]. The diagnosis of LN was confirmed by renal biopsy. All patients with drug induced lupus, active malignancies, overlapping syndromes, end-stage renal disease, urinary tract infection, active systemic infection and history of renal transplantation were excluded from the study. The 73 active LN patients received induction therapy according to their physicians and were followed up for 6 months after induction therapy.

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine and conducted in accordance with good clinical practice. All patients have provided written informed consent.

Data collection

Demographic and clinical information including age, sex and clinical manifestations were collected through chart review by an experienced rheumatologist. Assays of complete blood count, serum creatinine, eGFR, dsDNA, C3, C4, autoantibodies, and 24-hour urine protein levels were performed as routine laboratory tests and data were collected from electronic records. Corticosteroids and immunosuppressive agents use information were collected in SLE patients. SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI-2k) and renal SLEDAI (RSLEDAI, the total score of the four kidney-related parameters in SLEDAI-2k) were calculated based on chart review according to literature [12]. Authors had access to information that could identify individual participants during data collection.

Disease assessment and follow-up

At the time of enrollment, we used SLEDAI-2k and RSLEDAI to evaluate global disease activity and renal disease activity respectively. Renal biopsies were reviewed and classified by an experienced renal pathologist based on the 2003 International Society of Nephrology/Renal Pathological Society (ISN/RPS) classification [13]. Renal histological activity was assessed by activity index (AI) and chronicity index (CI) as described elsewhere [14]. According to the renal histology, patients with class III, IV, class III plus V, or class IV plus V LN were defined as proliferative LN, patients with pure class V LN were defined as membranous LN. Active LN were defined as proteinuria of more than 0.5g/24h at the time of enrollment. Inactive LN was defined as RSLEDAI = 0 at the time of enrollment. Detailed demographic and clinical characteristics of different groups of SLE patients were listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of SLE patients.

	Active LN	Inactive LN	Non-renal SLE
	(n = 73)	(n = 32)	(n = 49)
Sex (F/M) n	69/4	31/1	45/4
Age (years) Mean±SD	35.71±14.08	33.22±10.20	35.90±11.67
Clinical Manifestations
Fever n(%)	4(5.48)	3(9.38)	4(8.16)
Rash n(%)	17(23.29)	3(9.38)	9(18.37)
Vasculitis n(%)	1(1.37)	0	1(2.04)
Ulcer n(%)	12(16.44)	2(6.25)	6(12.24)
Serositis n(%)	7(9.59)	2(6.25)	3(6.12)
Arthritis n(%)	15(20.55)	3(9.38)	3(6.12)
NPSLE n(%)	0	0	0
Nephritis n(%)	73(100)	0	0
PAH n(%)	0	0	0
Hematologic n(%)	8(10.96)	1(3.13)	6(12.24)
Laboratory test
WBC (10^9/L) Median(IQR)	6.89 (4.57–9.63)	5.15 (4.38–6.58)	5.00 (4.20–6.69)
Hb (g/L) Mean±SD	107.99±23.23	126.09±26.56	122.67±20.66
Plt (10^9/L) Median (IQR)	199 (153–250)	224 (170–264)	204 (131–227)
ESR (mm/h) Median (IQR)	29(13–49)	14(7–29)	13(9–36)
CRP (mg/L) Median (IQR)	3.13(3.00–4.65)	1.27(0.61–3.66)	1.90(0.78–3.28)
MDRD-GFR (mL/(min*1.73m2)) Mean±SD	97.63±42.80	119.98±31.34	142.63±172.84
Serum Creatinine (μmol/L) Median (IQR)	65 (54–89)	54 (50–63)	55 (49–64)
24h urine protein (g/24h) Median (IQR)	2.42 (1.32–4.76)	-	-
Complement C3 (g/L) Mean±SD	0.62±0.26	0.88±0.20	0.79±0.25
Complement C4 (g/L) Median (IQR)	0.08 (0.06–0.14)	0.15 (0.13–0.20)	0.13 (0.10–0.18)
dsDNA (IU/ml) Median (IQR)	63.36 (13.57–100.00)	14.78 (8.92–23.55)	27.13 (10.10–82.92)
Autoantibodies, n of positive subjects (%)
Anti-Sm	7 (9.5)	2 (6.3)	6 (12.2)
Anti-SSA/Ro	39 (53.4)	14 (43.8)	26 (53)
Anti-RNP	22 (30.1)	10 (31.3)	11 (22.4)
Anti-SSB	8 (11.0)	2 (6.3)	6 (12.2)
Anti- Nucleosome	25 (34.2)	1 (3.1)	7 (14.3)
Anti- Ribosomal -P	13 (17.8)	1 (3.1)	5 (10.2)
Anti- Histone	9 (12.3)	0	4 (8.2)
APL	1 (1.4)	1 (3.1)	1 (2.0)
SLEDAI, Median (IQR)	8 (8–12)	2 (0–3)	2 (2–4)
RSLEDAI, Median (IQR)	4 (4–8)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Medications
Pred (mg) Median (IQR)	30 (20–50)	7.5 (2.5–11.5)	7.5 (2.5–15)
Methotrexate n (%)	0 (0)	1 (3.1)	0 (0)
Azathioprine n (%)	1(1.4)	7 (21.9)	3 (6.1)
CsA n (%)	9 (12.3)	4 (12.5)	2 (4.1)
Tacrolimus n (%)	8 (11.0)	3 (9.4)	0 (0)
Leflunomide n (%)	1 (1.4)	6 (18.8)	7 (14.3)
MMF n (%)	10 (13.7)	7 (21.9)	1 (2.0)
CYC n (%)	38 (52.1)	3 (9.4)	0 (0)
Iguratimod n (%)	5 (6.8)	2 (6.3)	1 (2.0)
Thalidomide n (%)	1(1.4)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Histological type
Proliferative LN n (%)	54 (74.0)
Class III, IV, III+V, IV+V n	6, 24, 11, 13
AI Median (IQR)	7 (4–9)
CI Median (IQR)	4 (3–6)
Membranouse LN n (%)	19 (26.0)
Class V n	19
AI Median (IQR)	1 (0–3)
CI Median (IQR)	3 (2–5)

LN, lupus nephritis; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; SD, standard deviation; F, female; M, male; NPSLE, Neuropsychiatric systemic lupus erythematosus; PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension; WBC, white blood cell; Hb, hemoglobin; Plt, platelet; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; MDRD, modification of diet in renal disease Study; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; dsDNA, anti-double-stranded DNA antibody; anti-Sm, anti-Smith; Anti-SSA/Ro, Anti-Sjögren’s-syndrome-related antigen A/Ro; anti-RNP anti-ribonucleoprotein; Anti-SSB, anti-Sj gren syndrome B; APL, anti-phorpholipid; SLEDAI, SLE disease activity index; RSLEDAI, renal SLEDAI; AI, Activity Index; CI, Chronicity Index; Pred: prednisone; CsA: cyclosporin A; MMF: mycophenolate mofetil; CYC: cyclophosphamide; CR: complete response; PR: partial response; NR: Non-response.

The treatment response of the patients who finished 6-month induction therapy was assessed based on American college of rheumatology response criteria for proliferative and membranous renal disease in systemic lupus erythematosus clinical trials [15] as follows. Complete response (CR): eGFR of >90 ml/minute/1.73m2, urinary protein creatinine ratio (UPCR) <0.2. Partial response (PR): no more than 25% decline in estimated GFR or end-stage renal disease, at least 50% reduction in the UPCR and UPCR is 0.2–2.0. Non-response (NR): not meeting the CR or PR criteria. Based on eGFR and UPCR, the patients were divided into CR, PR and NR groups. We didn’t include urine sediment in the criteria of treatment response due to the poor reproductivity.

Assay of urinary protein markers

Midstream morning urine was collected from each participant in a sterile container using an aseptic technique, which was immediately centrifuged after collection. The supernatant was aliquoted and stored at -80°C refrigerator until analysis. The expression levels of β2-MG, calbindin D, cystatin C, IL-18, KIM-1, MCP-1, nephrin, NGAL, VCAM-1, and VDBP were tested using Luminex high-throughput proteomics technology (kits from R&D LXSAHM-11 and LXSAHM-02) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Urinary protein levels were normalized by urinary creatinine to correct the effect of urine concentration.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS21 and Prism7.01. Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation for normally distributed variables or median and interquartile ranges (IQR), otherwise. Normality of data was established by Shapiro—Wilk tests. Student’s t test was used to compare the means of continuous variables conforming to normal distribution between groups. Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables non-conforming to the normal distribution. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare three or more groups of data with normal distribution while Kruskal-Wallis H test for non-normal distribution data. Dichotomous variables were expressed as counts and percentages and comparison between groups was performed by Chi-square test. Correlation analysis was performed using Spearman’s rank correlation. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to evaluate the diagnostic value of various biomarkers in differentiating active LN from inactive LN. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated and the best trade-off point of sensitivity and specificity was determined from the values calculated for each of the coordinates on the curve. A two-tailed value of p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

A total of 154 SLE patients (94% female) were enrolled in this study, including 73 active LN (47%), 32 inactive LN (21%), 49 non-renal SLE (32%). 55 age (34.35±7.49) and gender (90% female) matched healthy individuals were recruited as controls. According to the renal pathology results, active LN patients were divided into proliferative LN group (54 cases) and membranous LN group (19 cases). The 73 active LN patients received induction therapy with prednisone plus mycophenolate mofetil (n = 10), cyclophosphamide (n = 38), cyclosporine A (n = 9), tacrolimus (n = 8), azathioprine (n = 1), leflunomide (n = 1), iguratimod (n = 5), thalidomide (n = 1). After 6 months of induction therapy, 17 patients were lost to follow up. In the 56 active LN patients who finished 6 months induction therapy and follow-up, 17 achieved complete response, 27 achieved partial response while the other 12 were non-responders (S1 Fig).

The comparison of UBMs levels in different groups

Compared with healthy controls, all UBMs except nephrin were significantly increased in the active LN group (Table 2). Besides, uCystatinC, uMCP-1, uKIM-1, and uVDBP levels were significantly elevated in active LN patients compared to those in SLE patients without renal involvement (Table 2). More importantly, uCystatinC, uMCP-1, uKIM-1 levels were significantly higher in active LN group compared to inactive LN group (Table 2, Fig 1A–1C).

Table 2

UBMs levels in different groups of patients.

	Active LN	Inactive LN	adj pb	NonLN SLE	adj pb	Healthy Control	adj pb
β2-MG	2161.691 (829.994–3175.458)	1716.589 (598.933–2659.219)		1204.276 (567.577–2569.795)		657.147 (37.135–1423.217)	***
Calbindin D	12.675 (6.448–21.341)	7.843 (4.821–16.78)		7.133 (4.017–11.763)		4.979 (1.78–11.857)	***
Cystatin C	930.812 (356.528–2764.948)	350.861 (205.758–686.961)	*	467.373 (194.697–878.543)	*	340.074 (21.04–916.834)	***
IL-18	0.183 (0.098–0.637)	0.269 (0.124–0.425)		0.195 (0.077–0.465)		0.07 (0.032–0.174)	***
KIM-1	19.326 (8.309–59.182)	5.881 (2.41–10.258)	**	3.658 (1.52–12.003)	***	0.688 (0.147–6.739)	***
MCP-1	2.606 (0.87–8.549)	1.064 (0.442–1.882)	*	0.795 (0.283–1.911)	**	0.322 (0.104–1.066)	***
Nephrin	11.011 (2.755–31.34)	8.67 (4.931–17.399)		6.443 (2.452–19.241)		4.382 (1.84–15.303)
NGAL	1445.442 (713.418–5380.318)	998.742 (436.091–1784.045)		585.126 (275.972–1359.18)		1456.635 (471.465–6162.635)	**
VCAM-1	914.258 (253.363–2900.686)	858.611 (367.303–1212.107)		586.904 (317.004–1560.023)		237 (104.6–1876.378)	*
VDBP	407.814 (91.056–2705.239)	111.505 (71.744–247.134)		49.342 (14.092–104.59)	***	17.941 (10.325–32.648)	***

a. Data were expressed as median (IQR) since they were not normally distributed, unit: pg/mmol*Creatinine.

b. adj p: P value versus active LN group after bonferroni correction.

β2-MG: beta-2 microglobulin; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; VDBP: vitamin D-binding protein; NGAL: neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; KIM-1: kidney injury molecule 1; VCAM-1: vascular cell adhesion molecule 1

* p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001.

Fig 1

Comparison of three urinary markers in LN patients and healthy controls.

Comparison of uCystatinC (A), uKIM-1(B), and uMCP-1(C) levels in four groups of patients showed significant increase of the urinary markers in active LN patients. ROC curve for the three UBMs showed good performance to differentiate active LN from inactive LN (D). A-LN: active lupus nephritis, I-LN: inactive lupus nephritis, NR-SLE: nonrenal SLE, HC: healthy controls, KIM-1: kidney injury molecule 1, MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1.

To assess the capability of uCystatinC, uMCP-1, uKIM-1 to discriminate active LN from inactive LN, we performed ROC curve analysis. The AUC value was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.59–0.79), 0.70 (95% CI: 0.60–0.80), 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66–0.86) for uCystatin C, uMCP-1, uKIM-1 separately (Fig 1D).

The correlation between UBMs and clinical parameters

The correlation analysis revealed that uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uMCP-1, uNGAL, and uVDBP positively correlated with the total amount of 24-hour urinary protein. Uβ2-MG, uCalbindinD, uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uMCP-1, uNephrin, uNGAL, and uVDBP positively correlated with SLEDAI score while uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uMCP-1, uNGAL, and uVDBP positively correlated with RSLEDAI score. More importantly, uCystatinC, uKIM-1, uVCAM-1, and uVDBP positively correlated with AI while uVCAM-1 positively correlated with CI in renal pathology (Table 3).

Table 3

Correlation of UBMs with disease activity scores.

	24hUP		SLEDAI-2k		RSLEDAI		AI		CI
	Spearmen r	p	Spearmen r	p	Spearmen r	p	Spearmen r	p	Spearmen r	p
β2-MG	0.07333		0.2293	**	0.04035		-0.05865		0.04482
Calbindin D	0.1066		0.2262	**	0.04808		-0.05053		-0.04973
Cystatin C	0.3135	***	0.3586	***	0.3228	***	0.3759	*	0.2782
IL-18	0.09846		0.1352		-0.1598		0.02824		0.04967
KIM-1	0.4292	***	0.456	***	0.4875	***	0.3601	*	-0.00195
MCP-1	0.34	***	0.4116	***	0.3471	***	0.2203		0.09216
Nephrin	0.141		0.1916	*	-0.04185		-0.03963		0.02619
NGAL	0.2592	**	0.3702	***	0.4183	***	-0.02648		-0.1411
VCAM-1	0.1463		0.1111		0.05509		0.3686	*	0.3014	*
VDBP	0.4332	***	0.4165	***	0.3231	**	0.3526	*	-0.03098

24hUP: 24-hour urine protein; SLEDAI-2k: SLE Disease Activity Index 2000; RSLEDAI: renal SLEDAI; AI: activity index; CI: chronicity index; β2-MG: beta-2 microglobulin; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; VDBP: vitamin D-binding protein; NGAL: neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin; KIM-1: kidney injury molecule 1; VCAM-1: vascular cell adhesion molecule 1

* p<0.05

**p<0.01

***p<0.001.

UBMs as potential markers of renal pathology

With the concurrent renal biopsy, we were able to compare the levels of UBMs between proliferative LN and membranous LN. In this study, proliferative LN (n = 54) referred to class III, class IV, mixed class III/V, and mixed class IV/V while membranous LN referred to pure class V (n = 19). The study showed significantly increased uCystatinC, uKIM-1, and uVCAM-1 in proliferative LN when compared to those in membranous group (Fig 2A–2C). ROC analysis revealed an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.648–0.873), 0.69 (95% CI: 0.56–0.81), 0.67 (0.54–0.80), and 0.80 (95%CI: 0.69–0.90) for uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, uKIM-1 and the combined three of the above UBMs. When using the combined three UBMs to discriminate membranous LN from proliferative LN, the sensitivity and specificity were 94.7% and 55.6%, the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 42.9% and 96.8%. (Fig 2D).

Fig 2

Comparison of three urinary markers in different pathologic classes of lupus nephritis.

Comparison of uCystatinC (A), uKIM-1(B), and uVCAM-1(C) levels in proliferative and membranous LN patients and ROC curve for the combined two and three UBMs to differentiate proliferative LN from membranous LN (D). KIM-1: kidney injury molecule 1, VCAM-1: vascular cell adhesion molecule 1, Sen: sensitivity, Spe: specificity, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, AUC: area under the curve.

NGAL as a potential marker of treatment response

In the subgroup of active LN patients who finished 6-month induction therapy, we further explore the difference of baseline UBMs levels in patients with different treatment responses. After 6 months of induction therapy, 17 patients were lost to follow up. In the 56 active LN patients who finished 6 months induction therapy and follow-up, 17 achieved complete response, 27 achieved partial response while the other 12 were non-responders. Baseline characteristics of patients with different response status were listed in S1 Table. Among the 10 UBMs, only baseline uNGAL levels were significantly lower among those with complete response (553.68 ng/mL; 95%CI 306.58–1696.13) than those in patients with partial response (1073.44 ng/mL; 95% CI 240.22–1883.89) and nonresponse (2621.25ng/mL; 95% CI 2052.78–3147.47) (Fig 3A). No significant differences were observed in the other 9 urinary biomarkers after treatment. To determine the performance of uNGAL to predict renal response, we performed ROC analysis. The AUC for uNGAL to discriminate responders from non-responders after 6-month induction therapy was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.65–0.92). At the cut-off value of 1964.58 ng/mL, the sensitivity was 81.4%, specificity was 83.3%, PPV was 55.6%, and NPV was 94.6% (Fig 3B).

Fig 3

NGAL as a potential marker of treatment response.

Comparison of NGAL in LN patients with different response status after 6 months of treatment (A) and ROC curve for NGAL to differentiate responders from non-responders (B). NGAL: neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, NR: Non- response, Sen: sensitivity, Spe: specificity, PPV: positive predictive value, NPV: negative predictive value, AUC: area under the curve.

Discussion

Renal involvement is a common and serious complication of SLE, making it an important predictor of survival in SLE patients [1]. Despite advances in the treatment of lupus nephritis, its management is fraught with uncertainty and lack of reliable biomarkers for intrarenal activity and chronicity. In this study, we have validated 10 potential urinary biomarkers, which were previously mentioned to be promising candidate biomarkers of LN, using a multiplex assay. Our results indicated that in out cohort of Chinese LN patients, using a panel of urinary biomarkers, we were able to validate that the combination of uVCAM-1, uCystatin C, uKIM-1 could be a promising biomarker panel for discriminate proliferative LN from membranous LN. More importantly, using a longitudinal cohort of LN, who received 6-month induction therapy after renal biopsy, we have validated increased baseline uNGAL as a good predictor for treatment response.

The biomarkers panel in this study was selected based on previous studies showing potential of being candidate biomarkers for either LN or other renal diseases [16-26]. Not surprisingly, the results of the current study further corroborate findings of the previous LN biomarker studies. Urinary markers with the most evidence in LN, such as MCP-1, VCAM-1, and NGAL, were proved to perform better as diagnostic or prognostic markers in this study. In this study, uMCP-1 levels were significantly higher in active LN patients when compared to inactive LN, non-renal SLE and healthy controls, which is in accordance with the result in a recent meta-analysis study [26]. The correlation ship between uMCP-1 and renal disease activity [27, 28] was also confirmed in the current study.

uVCAM-1 was another widely validated biomarker of LN [21, 23, 25, 29, 30]. Our study confirmed elevated uVCAM-1 in active LN patients when compared to healthy control. However, in contrast to the earlier findings, we didn’t observe any difference in uVCAM-1 level between active LN group and inactive LN group. Neither did we establish any correlation between uVCAM-1 and disease activity. This might be due to the different study population. The majority of patients studied in earlier publications were not Asian ethnicity while our study focused in Chinese LN patients. Another possible explanation for this is that the assay used for uVCAM-1 in our study was a multiplex bead technology, which is more sensitive in terms of detection range, while previous studies mostly used enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). In our study, uVCAM-1 correlated positively with both AI and CI in renal pathology, indicating the potential role of uVCAM-1 in reflecting renal pathology changes. We further observed that the combination of uVCAM-1, uCystatin C, uKIM-1 can discriminate membranous LN from proliferative LN. This finding is in accordance with a recent study which confirmed the role of uVCAM-1 in predicting elevated renal pathology AI in LN [25].

Serum cystatin C was broadly reported as a biomarker for renal dysfunction in LN and other renal diseases [31, 32]. However, only one recent study discussing the effect of preservatives on urine protein degradation mentioned elevated urinary levels of cystatin C in LN patients [33]. We have demonstrated that uCystatin C levels were significantly increased in active LN and correlated with 24h urine protein, SLEDAI, RSLEDAI, and AI in renal pathology. To our knowledge, this is the first publication to describe the potential correlation between uCystatin C and disease activity in LN.

KIM-1 was first reported as a biomarker for acute kidney injury [34]. Urinary KIM-1 was reported to elevated in active LN patients and correlate with renal histological inflammation [35]. More recently, KIM-1 has been validated as an important component in several different urinary biomarker panels including RAIL for predicting renal pathology [36-38]. In the current study, we also demonstrated that when combined with other UBMs, KIM-1 was able to better reflect renal pathology.

uVDBP was only recently proved to be a biomarker for LN. A Korean group identified several urinary biomarkers using proteomics and validated uVDBP as a biomarker for reflecting renal disease activity and predicting renal flare [16]. Our study further confirmed their results. We consider that in Asian LN patients, uVDBP can reflect urine protein level, renal disease activity and renal pathology AI.

The most important finding in this study is the predictive value of baseline uNGAL in treatment response after 6-month induction therapy. Urinary NGAL has been validated as a predictor of renal disease activity [19, 39], which has been confirmed in the current study. It is also one of the 6 UBMs in RAIL [36, 38] that predict renal pathology AI in LN patients. More recently, Satirapoja et al. demonstrated that baseline uNGAL performed better than conventional markers in predicting a treatment response in active LN patients with both sensitivity and specificity around 70% [20]. Although urinary NGAL level correlated well with 24h urine protein and predicted renal disease activity, it couldn’t differentiate proliferative LN from membranous LN. Previous studies also haven’t validated the correlation ship between urinary NGAL and the histopathological type of LN. Since patients’ baseline character including renal pathological characteristics were not predictors for treatment response [40, 41], it’s not surprising that urinary NGAL could predict treatment response but not renal histopathology type while the biomarkers which could differentiate different pathological types of LN could not predict treatment response.

Most of the biomarkers validated in this study, however, are not specific to LN. For instance, urinary KIM-1 and NGAL has been reported as biomarkers of kidney injury in obese children [42]. The current study didn’t include patients with other chronic kidney diseases. We envision the clinical implication of the current study is to use these biomarkers in predicting renal pathology features or treatment response of LN after patients’ diagnosis of SLE base on the classification criteria.

Given the complexity of the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis, it is now widely accepted that a single urinary biomarker might not be powerful enough. Many groups have tried different approaches to address this [36, 38, 43–45]. In this study, we used a multiplex technology to simultaneously measure 10 candidate UBMs. We have demonstrated that the technology is a suitable tool with wider analytic range and better cost-effectiveness. It is also proved to be stable in both urine and serum samples by others [46]. Using the multiplex technology, it is possible to validate hundreds of biomarkers with only limited volume of samples, which is extremely important when the sample is precious, for example, cerebrospinal fluid.

Our research, however, is subject to several limitations. First of all, the study population and sample size are limited. In particular, the longitudinal cohort with treatment responses was small. The results of the current study are valid with Chinese LN patients. The interpretation of the study conclusion in other patients’ group should be with caution. Secondly, given the observational nature of the study, the induction treatment in the study population didn’t strictly follow the international guidelines on the management of LN, in which 41/56 (73%) patients received first line treatment (CYC or MMF) recommended by LN guidelines. Due to the widely accepted evidence of calcineurin inhibitors in Asian LN patients, another 20% (11/56) patients received cyclosporin A or tacrolimus. The diversity of treatment regimens may bring indeed certain confounding bias in the study. In future plans, our study findings will need to be validated in larger prospective cohorts with more standardized treatment and better designed control groups.

Conclusions

In conclusion, using a multiplex bead technique, we have identified a panel of urinary biomarkers (uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, uKIM-1) to reflect renal histology (proliferative LN vs membranous LN) in LN patients. Furthermore, urinary NGAL demonstrated good prediction ability to discriminate responders from non-responders in active LN patients after 6-month induction therapy.

Study flow diagram.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Baseline characteristics of patients with different renal responses.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-15842

The utility of urinary biomarker panel in predicting renal pathology and treatment response in Chinese lupus nephritis patients

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two reviewers found some interests in this study, but also pointed out a number of issues that require improvement or amendment. I ask the authors to fully respond to all comments made by reviewers in the revised version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 04 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China grants (81771733)."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Liu L et al investigated a large number of SLE patients to identify the predictor for renal pathological activity and prognosis by using 10-urinary biomarkers. This study is focusing on the important issue estimating activity of lupus nephritis without pathological confirmation. This manuscript sounds interesting, but I have concerns which authors should address.

Major

Urinary NGAL was highly correlated with both 24-hours proteinuria and RSLEDAI comparing to other urinary biomarkers (Table 3) and only the urinary biomarker predicting renal response. However, it could not distinguish proliferative LN from membranous LN while uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, and uKim-1 were significantly increased in proliferative LN (Figure 2). Author needs to discuss this discrepancy in discussion section.

Previous reports already showed uNGAL was good biomarker for AKI. In this manuscript, authors accepted ACR criteria for renal response using only reduction level of proteinuria. According to the criteria, there was another response criterion based on eGFR change. I suggest authors to create another table comparing baseline clinical features including eGFR in patients with CR, PR and NR. Cumulative CR or PR rate using criterion based on eGFR change also needs to be shown.

Minor

ROC analysis for predicting proliferative LN using 2-urinary biomarkers needs to be done before using 3 (page15, line 226).

Reviewer #2: The authors implemented a retrospective study to show the utility of urinary biomarkers in predicting renal pathology and treatment response after induction therapy in Chinese patients with SLE who presented lupus nephritis (LN). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis showed a difference in biomarkers between proliferative LN and membranous LN. The results are interesting and support the utility of urinary biomarkers in LN patients.

However, it is difficult to accept the author's opinion since this manuscript contains serious problems such as imprecision due to the extremely small number of cases, lack of induction therapy for LN according to recommendations by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), or the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) in this patient population, and the lack of information regarding levels of conventional laboratory measures and histologic features in the studied subjects.

Specific comments:

1. The objective of this analysis was to predict renal pathology in lupus nephritis of SLE patients using urinary biomarkers. The biomarkers shown by Liu L have already been demonstrated to be potential predictors of renal pathology feature not only in lupus nephritis but also in glomerulonephritis including IgA nephropathy and diabetic nephropathy. The current study by Liu requires further optimization and validation in another cohort.

2. Table 1: The authors should show more information regarding levels of conventional laboratory measures and histologic features in the studied subjects.

3. Materials and methods, Disease assessment and follow-up: As for the assessment of urinary protein levels, the urinary protein ranges overlap between the active LN group (0.5g/24h) and the partial response group (urinary protein creatinine ratio: 0.2-2.0). Evaluation of urinary protein in patients with LN should be assessed by decrease in urinary protein levels over time.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

3 Oct 2020

Responses to reviewers’ comments

We appreciate the reviewers’ efforts in assessing our manuscript and giving constructive criticism. Base on the reviewers’ comments, we have made major revision to the original manuscript. We believe that the manuscript has been further improved.

Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1: Liu L et al investigated a large number of SLE patients to identify the predictor for renal pathological activity and prognosis by using 10-urinary biomarkers. This study is focusing on the important issue estimating activity of lupus nephritis without pathological confirmation. This manuscript sounds interesting, but I have concerns which authors should address.

Major

Urinary NGAL was highly correlated with both 24-hours proteinuria and RSLEDAI comparing to other urinary biomarkers (Table 3) and only the urinary biomarker predicting renal response. However, it could not distinguish proliferative LN from membranous LN while uVCAM-1, uCystatinC, and uKim-1 were significantly increased in proliferative LN (Figure 2). Author needs to discuss this discrepancy in discussion section.

Re: We have added the following discussion in the manuscript:

Although urinary NGAL level correlated well with 24h urine protein and predicted renal disease activity, it couldn’t differentiate proliferative LN from membranous LN. Previous studies also haven’t validated the correlation ship between urinary NGAL and the histopathological type of LN. Since patients’ baseline character including renal pathological characteristics were not predictors for treatment response [40, 41], it’s not surprising that urinary NGAL could predict treatment response but not renal histopathology type while the biomarkers which could differentiate different pathological types of LN could not predict treatment response.

Previous reports already showed uNGAL was good biomarker for AKI. In this manuscript, authors accepted ACR criteria for renal response using only reduction level of proteinuria. According to the criteria, there was another response criterion based on eGFR change. I suggest authors to create another table comparing baseline clinical features including eGFR in patients with CR, PR and NR. Cumulative CR or PR rate using criterion based on eGFR change also needs to be shown.

Re: We appreciate the insightful suggestion. We fully agree with the concern that using only proteinuria level as renal response might bias the results. We apologize for not describing the ACR criteria for renal response precisely in the manuscript. It actually included the requirement of eGFR change. It has now been corrected in the manuscript as follows:

Complete response (CR): eGFR of >90 ml/minute/1.73m2, urinary protein creatinine ratio (UPCR) <0.2. Partial response (PR): no more than 25% decline in estimated GFR or end-stage renal disease, at least 50% reduction in the UPCR and UPCR is 0.2–2.0. Non-response (NR): not meeting the CR or PR criteria. Based on eGFR and UPCR, the patients were divided into CR, PR and NR groups. We didn’t include urine sediment in the criteria of treatment response due to the poor reproductivity.

We have double checked our original data and confirmed that the renal response status was defined base on both proteinuria and eGFR change.

We have created another table comparing baseline clinical features of the patients with CR, PR and NR as S1 Table. We also did ANOVA test to check if baseline eGFR levels differed in CR, PR, and NR patients. It turned out that the baseline eGFR levels were not significantly different among the three groups (see the following figure 1’). We didn’t calculate the cumulative CR or PR rate using criterion based on eGFR change due to the following two reasons. Firstly, using only eGFR change to define the treatment response in lupus nephritis is not widely accepted. Secondly, the calculation of cumulative CR or PR rate was not doable since the we only have detailed laboratory data at the 6 months.

Figure 1’. Baseline eGFR levels in patients with different treatment responses. (shown in the attached file)

Minor

ROC analysis for predicting proliferative LN using 2-urinary biomarkers needs to be done before using 3 (page15, line 226).

Re: Thanks for the suggestion. We have replotted the ROC curve in Figure 2(D), in which we have added ROC curve for predicting proliferative LN using 2-urinary biomarkers.

Reviewer #2: The authors implemented a retrospective study to show the utility of urinary biomarkers in predicting renal pathology and treatment response after induction therapy in Chinese patients with SLE who presented lupus nephritis (LN). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis showed a difference in biomarkers between proliferative LN and membranous LN. The results are interesting and support the utility of urinary biomarkers in LN patients.

However, it is difficult to accept the author's opinion since this manuscript contains serious problems such as imprecision due to the extremely small number of cases, lack of induction therapy for LN according to recommendations by the American College of Radiology (ACR), the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), or the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) in this patient population, and the lack of information regarding levels of conventional laboratory measures and histologic features in the studied subjects.

Specific comments:

1. The objective of this analysis was to predict renal pathology in lupus nephritis of SLE patients using urinary biomarkers. The biomarkers shown by Liu L have already been demonstrated to be potential predictors of renal pathology feature not only in lupus nephritis but also in glomerulonephritis including IgA nephropathy and diabetic nephropathy. The current study by Liu requires further optimization and validation in another cohort.

Re: We fully understand the concern and totally agree with the idea that the biomarkers validated in this study were not specific for LN. We envision the clinical application of these biomarkers in predicting renal pathology features of LN in patients who have already had the diagnosis of SLE base on the classification criteria. In this context, it is less likely that the patients will have another type of nephropathy. However, we do agree that future studies should be designed to include patients with different types of nephropathy to clarify if the urinary biomarkers validated in this study were specific to LN or not.

To clarify this, we have added the following discussion in the manuscript:

Most of the biomarkers validated in this study, however, are not specific to LN. For instants, urinary KIM-1 and NGAL has been reported as biomarkers of kidney injury in obese children [42]. The current study didn’t include patients with other chronic kidney diseases. We envision the clinical implication of the current study is to use these biomarkers in predicting renal pathology features or treatment response of LN after patients’ diagnosis of SLE base on the classification criteria.

2. Table 1: The authors should show more information regarding levels of conventional laboratory measures and histologic features in the studied subjects.

Re: Thanks for the suggestion. We have added more detailed clinical and laboratory data and significantly improved Table 1. Unfortunately, we don’t have more detailed information regarding histological features except for historical type, activity index, and chronicity index of the active LN patients.

3. Materials and methods, Disease assessment and follow-up: As for the assessment of urinary protein levels, the urinary protein ranges overlap between the active LN group (0.5g/24h) and the partial response group (urinary protein creatinine ratio: 0.2-2.0). Evaluation of urinary protein in patients with LN should be assessed by decrease in urinary protein levels over time.

Re: We fully agree with the concern and we apologize for not describing our criteria on the treatment response precisely in the manuscript. It has now been corrected as follows in the manuscript:

Complete response (CR): eGFR of >90 ml/minute/1.73m2, urinary protein creatinine ratio (UPCR) <0.2. Partial response (PR): no more than 25% decline in estimated GFR or end-stage renal disease, at least 50% reduction in the UPCR and UPCR is 0.2–2.0. Non-response (NR): not meeting the CR or PR criteria. Based on eGFR and UPCR, the patients were divided into CR, PR and NR groups. We didn’t include urine sediment in the criteria of treatment response due to the poor reproductivity.

We have also double checked our patients’ response status based on the above criteria and confirmed that the renal response status was defined base on both absolute value of proteinuria as well as improvement of proteinuria, and eGFR change.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer comments_20200930.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Oct 2020

The utility of urinary biomarker panel in predicting renal pathology and treatment response in Chinese lupus nephritis patients

PONE-D-20-15842R1

Dear Dr. Bao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Masataka Kuwana, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

19 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-15842R1

The utility of urinary biomarker panel in predicting renal pathology and treatment response in Chinese lupus nephritis patients

Dear Dr. Bao:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Masataka Kuwana

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE