Dmitry Rychkov1,2, Swastika Sur1, Marina Sirota2,3, Minnie M Sarwal1. 1. Division of Multi-Organ Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco. 2. Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical decision and immunosuppression dosing in kidney transplantation rely on transplant biopsy tissue histology even though histology has low specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility for rejection diagnosis. The inclusion of stable allografts in mechanistic and clinical studies is vital to provide a normal, noninjured comparative group for all interrogative studies on understanding allograft injury. Objective: To refine the definition of a stable allograft as one that is clinically, histologically, and molecularly quiescent using publicly available transcriptomics data. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus was used to search for microarray gene expression data from kidney transplant tissues, resulting in 38 studies from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. The diagnostic annotations included 510 acute rejection (AR) samples, 1154 histologically stable (hSTA) samples, and 609 normal samples. Raw fluorescence intensity data were downloaded and preprocessed followed by data set merging and batch correction. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was area under the receiver operating characteristics curve from a set of feature selected genes and cell types for distinguishing AR from normal kidney tissue. Results: Within the 28 data sets, the feature selection procedure identified a set of 6 genes (KLF4, CENPJ, KLF2, PPP1R15A, FOSB, TNFAIP3) (area under the curve [AUC], 0.98) and 5 immune cell types (CD4+ T-cell central memory [Tcm], CD4+ T-cell effector memory [Tem], CD8+ Tem, natural killer [NK] cells, and Type 1 T helper [TH1] cells) (AUC, 0.92) that were combined into 1 composite Instability Score (InstaScore) (AUC, 0.99). The InstaScore was applied to the hSTA samples: 626 of 1154 (54%) were found to be immune quiescent and redefined as histologically and molecularly stable (hSTA/mSTA); 528 of 1154 (46%) were found to have molecular evidence of rejection (hSTA/mAR) and should not have been classified as stable allografts. The validation on an independent cohort of 6 months of protocol biopsy samples in December 2019 showed that hSTA/mAR samples had a significant change in graft function (r = 0.52, P < .001) and graft loss at 5-year follow-up (r = 0.17). A drop by 10 mL/min/1.73m2 in estimated glomerular filtration rate was estimated as a threshold in allograft transitioning from hSTA/mSTA to hSTA/mAR. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this prognostic study suggest that the InstaScore could provide an important adjunct for comprehensive and highly quantitative phenotyping of protocol kidney transplant biopsy samples and could be integrated into clinical care for accurate estimation of subsequent patient clinical outcomes.
Importance: Clinical decision and immunosuppression dosing in kidney transplantation rely on transplant biopsy tissue histology even though histology has low specificity, sensitivity, and reproducibility for rejection diagnosis. The inclusion of stable allografts in mechanistic and clinical studies is vital to provide a normal, noninjured comparative group for all interrogative studies on understanding allograft injury. Objective: To refine the definition of a stable allograft as one that is clinically, histologically, and molecularly quiescent using publicly available transcriptomics data. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prognostic study, the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus was used to search for microarray gene expression data from kidney transplant tissues, resulting in 38 studies from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. The diagnostic annotations included 510 acute rejection (AR) samples, 1154 histologically stable (hSTA) samples, and 609 normal samples. Raw fluorescence intensity data were downloaded and preprocessed followed by data set merging and batch correction. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure was area under the receiver operating characteristics curve from a set of feature selected genes and cell types for distinguishing AR from normal kidney tissue. Results: Within the 28 data sets, the feature selection procedure identified a set of 6 genes (KLF4, CENPJ, KLF2, PPP1R15A, FOSB, TNFAIP3) (area under the curve [AUC], 0.98) and 5 immune cell types (CD4+ T-cell central memory [Tcm], CD4+ T-cell effector memory [Tem], CD8+ Tem, natural killer [NK] cells, and Type 1 T helper [TH1] cells) (AUC, 0.92) that were combined into 1 composite Instability Score (InstaScore) (AUC, 0.99). The InstaScore was applied to the hSTA samples: 626 of 1154 (54%) were found to be immune quiescent and redefined as histologically and molecularly stable (hSTA/mSTA); 528 of 1154 (46%) were found to have molecular evidence of rejection (hSTA/mAR) and should not have been classified as stable allografts. The validation on an independent cohort of 6 months of protocol biopsy samples in December 2019 showed that hSTA/mAR samples had a significant change in graft function (r = 0.52, P < .001) and graft loss at 5-year follow-up (r = 0.17). A drop by 10 mL/min/1.73m2 in estimated glomerular filtration rate was estimated as a threshold in allograft transitioning from hSTA/mSTA to hSTA/mAR. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this prognostic study suggest that the InstaScore could provide an important adjunct for comprehensive and highly quantitative phenotyping of protocol kidney transplant biopsy samples and could be integrated into clinical care for accurate estimation of subsequent patient clinical outcomes.
Authors: J Reeve; J Sellarés; M Mengel; B Sis; A Skene; L Hidalgo; D G de Freitas; K S Famulski; P F Halloran Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Tanya Barrett; Stephen E Wilhite; Pierre Ledoux; Carlos Evangelista; Irene F Kim; Maxim Tomashevsky; Kimberly A Marshall; Katherine H Phillippy; Patti M Sherman; Michelle Holko; Andrey Yefanov; Hyeseung Lee; Naigong Zhang; Cynthia L Robertson; Nadezhda Serova; Sean Davis; Alexandra Soboleva Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-11-27 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Tara L Spivey; Lorenzo Uccellini; Maria Libera Ascierto; Gabriele Zoppoli; Valeria De Giorgi; Lucia Gemma Delogu; Alyson M Engle; Jaime M Thomas; Ena Wang; Francesco M Marincola; Davide Bedognetti Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2011-10-12 Impact factor: 5.531
Authors: Daniel Baron; Gérard Ramstein; Mélanie Chesneau; Yann Echasseriau; Annaick Pallier; Chloé Paul; Nicolas Degauque; Maria P Hernandez-Fuentes; Alberto Sanchez-Fueyo; Kenneth A Newell; Magali Giral; Jean-Paul Soulillou; Rémi Houlgatte; Sophie Brouard Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Damian Szklarczyk; Annika L Gable; David Lyon; Alexander Junge; Stefan Wyder; Jaime Huerta-Cepas; Milan Simonovic; Nadezhda T Doncheva; John H Morris; Peer Bork; Lars J Jensen; Christian von Mering Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Yasset Perez-Riverol; Max Kuhn; Juan Antonio Vizcaíno; Marc-Phillip Hitz; Enrique Audain Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Di Zhang; Yicun Wang; Song Zeng; Min Zhang; Xin Zhang; Yuxuan Wang; Zijian Zhang; Xi Wang; Xiaopeng Hu Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Reuben D Sarwal; Wanzin Yazar; Nicholas Titzler; Jeremy Wong; Chih-Hung Lai; Christopher Chin; Danielle Krieger; Jeff Stoll; Francisco Dias Lourenco; Minnie M Sarwal; Srinka Ghosh Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 4.241