| Literature DB >> 33292164 |
Adam M Thorne1,2, Honglei Huang1,2, Darragh P O'Brien2, Marco Eijken3,4, Nicoline Valentina Krogstrup3,5, Rikke Norregaard4, Bjarne Møller6, Rutger J Ploeg7, Bente Jespersen8,9, Benedikt M Kessler10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) is currently being explored as a non-invasive method to attenuate ischaemia/reperfusion injuries in organs. A randomised clinical study (CONTEXT) evaluated the effects of RIC compared to non-RIC controls in human kidney transplants.Entities:
Keywords: Acute phase proteins; CONTEXT clinical trial; ELISA; Kidney transplantation; Mass spectrometry; Proteomics; Remote ischaemic conditioning
Year: 2020 PMID: 33292164 PMCID: PMC7607690 DOI: 10.1186/s12014-020-09301-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Proteomics ISSN: 1542-6416 Impact factor: 3.988
Fig. 1CONTEXT clinical trial sample collection and proteomics analysis workflows. Sample collection timeline of urine, blood and kidney tissue biopsy material (a). Proteomic workflows for kidney tissue (left panel) and plasma (right panel) (b)
CONTEXT patient cohorts for the MS discovery and validation studies
| Patient cohort for the MS discovery studya | Patient cohort for validation study | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recipient | RIC (n = 6) | Non-RIC (n = 6) | Recipient | RIC, n = 72 | Non-RIC, n = 74 |
| Gender | Gender | ||||
| Male | 5 | 5 | Male | 46 (64%) | 44 (59%) |
| Female | 1 | 1 | Female | 26 (36%) | 30 (51%) |
| Age, median (range) | 52.2 (43.6–60.5) | 48.0 (30.1–70.3) | Age, median (range) | 57.3 (49.7–64.8) | 60.8 (49.4–65.9) |
| Dialysis mode | Dialysis mode | ||||
| Pre-emptive | 3 | 4 | Preemptive | 13 (18%) | 15 (20%) |
| HD | 2 | 1 | HD | 40 (56%) | 42 (57%) |
| PD | 1 | 1 | PD | 18 (25%) | 16 (22%) |
| HD + PD | 1 (1%) | 1 (1%) | |||
| Number of transplant | Number of transplant | ||||
| First | 6 | 6 | First | 63 (88%) | 65 (88%) |
| Retransplant | 0 | 0 | Retransplant | 9 (13%) | 9 (12%) |
| Original renal disease | Original renal disease | ||||
| Glomerulopathy | 2 | 1 | Glomerulopathy | 20 (28%) | 15 (20%) |
| ADPKD | 2 | 2 | ADPKD | 15 (21%) | 15 (20%) |
| Diabetes mellitus | 1 | 1 | Diabetes mellitus | 8 (11%) | 8 (11%) |
| Vascular/hypertension | 0 | 1 | Vascular/hypertension | 7 (10%) | 9 (12%) |
| Reflux/obstructive | 0 | 0 | Reflux/obstructive | 3 (4%) | 2 (3%) |
| Other | 0 | 1 | Other | 6 (8%) | 7 (9%) |
| Unknown | 1 | 0 | Unknown | 13 (18%) | 18 (24%) |
| Comorbidity | Comorbidity | ||||
| Diabetes mellitus | 1 | 1 | Diabetes mellitus | 12 (17%) | 14 (19%) |
| Hypertension | 5 | 5 | Hypertension | 62 (86%) | 69 (93%) |
| Total HLA-A, D, DR mismatches | Total HLA-A, B, DR mismatches | ||||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 (4%) | 6 (8%) |
| 1–2 | 0 | 0 | 1–2 | 15 (21%) | 18 (24%) |
| 3–4 | 5 | 6 | 3–4 | 47 (65%) | 35 (47%) |
| 5–6 | 1 | 0 | 5–6 | 7 (10%) | 15 (20%) |
| Immunosuppression at discharge | Immunosuppression at discharge | ||||
| Tacrolimus | 6 | 6 | Tacrolimus | 63 (88%) | 72 (97%) |
| Mycophenolate mofetil | 6 | 6 | Mycophenolate mofetil | 70 (97%) | 74 (100%) |
| Corticosteroids | 6 | 6 | Corticosteroids | 66 (92%) | 72 (97%) |
| Cyclosporine | 7 (10%) | 2 (3%) | |||
| None (graft loss) | 2 | ||||
Data are mean (standard deviation), n (%), or median (interquartile range). Remuzzi scores on biopsies taken 30 min after reperfusion of the graft (baseline-biopsy)
Patient demographics and intraoperative data in RIC and non-RIC groups: left side two columns are the exploratory groups and right side two columns are the validation groups. Data are mean (standard deviation), n (%), or median (interquartile range). Remuzzi scores on biopsies taken 30 min after reperfusion of the graft (baseline-biopsy)
HD haemodialysis; PD peritoneal dialysis, ADPKD autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, DBD donation after brain death, DCD donation after circulatory death, glom glomeruli, RIC remote ischaemic conditioning, UW University of Wisconsin solution
aSamples used for the discovery cohort are included in the validation cohort
bScore if including only biopsies with minimum 6 or 10 glomeruli in the analysis
cBiopsies were either not performed or insufficient
Fig. 2RIC versus non-RIC kidney tissue proteome profiles. Hierarchical clustering of kidney tissue proteome profiles using Euclidian distance (a). Volcano plot showing differential protein expression between RIC and non-RIC at baseline (TD0) (b) and between RIC and non-RIC 6 days post-transplant (TD6) (c). X-axis: protein level difference indicated by log2 fold change, Y-axis: statistical significance indicated by -log10 (p-value). Overall, 30 and 62 proteins, for A and B respectively, have a fold change greater than 2 (at a p-value < 0.05). Up-regulated proteins are highlighted in red, while their down-regulated counterparts are coloured blue. d Biological pathways reflected by elevated proteins in kidney tissues at day 6 (TD6), RIC versus non-RIC (Table S2). Halos in red / blue indicate the abundance levels of proteins used in this analysis. e Enriched biological process (GO-terms) from proteins shown in d
Fig. 3Plasma proteomes affected by RIC as compared to non-RIC. Volcano plot showing plasma protein level changes between: RIC and non-RIC at baseline (0hrs) (a), RIC and non-RIC at 90 min (90 min) (b), RIC and non-RIC at 1 day post-transplant (TD1) (c), RIC and non-RIC 5 days post-transplant (TD5) (d). X-axis: protein level difference indicated by log2 fold change, Y-axis: statistical significance indicated by – log10 (p-value). In total, 6, 8, 10, and 9 proteins, have a fold change greater than 2 (at a p-value < 0.05) for a, b, c and d respectively. Up-regulated proteins are highlighted in red and down regulated proteins are coloured blue
Fig. 4Reduced levels of acute phase proteins SAA1/2 and CRP after RIC. Box-plot representation of peptide precursor mass ions assigned to SAA1 (a), SAA2 (b) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as measured by LC–MS/MS (c). LFQ intensities detected in RIC vs non-RIC at 1 and 5 days post-transplant were compared and normalised to baseline (TD0) levels (a, b) or displayed as Log10 values (c)
Fig. 5Effect of RIC on SAA1 and CRP levels in the blood of CONTEXT patients. ELISA validation of SAA1 (a dot plot, c bar graph) and CRP (b dot plot, d bar graph) at baseline (TD0), 90 min, 1 (TD1) and 5 days (TD5) post-transplant in both RIC and non-RIC. The y-axis represents quantified levels of target in ng/mL for a, c, and pg/mL for b, d