Jeroen G H P Verhoeven1,2, Carla C Baan3,4, Annemiek M A Peeters3,4, Marian C Clahsen-van Groningen5, Daan Nieboer6, Mariëlle Herzog7, Marc Eccleston7, Dennis A Hesselink3,4, Karin Boer3,4. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Room Na-524, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.verhoeven@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Rotterdam Transplant Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.verhoeven@erasmusmc.nl. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Room Na-524, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Rotterdam Transplant Group, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Belgian Volition SPRL, Isnes, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for noninvasive markers specific for kidney transplant rejection. Such a marker may eventually overcome the need for a transplant biopsy. In this pilot study, the potential of circulating cell-free nucleosomes (CCFN) to serve as a biomarker for kidney transplant rejection was evaluated. METHODS: Forty de novo kidney transplant recipients were prospectively followed as part of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Total CCFN (H3) and CCFN with the histone modifications H3K36me3 and H3 citrulline were measured in patients at four fixed time points: before transplantation and on days 3-6, 30 and 180 after kidney transplantation. In addition, serum collected at times of transplant rejection (n = 14) was analyzed. CCFN were measured with a Nu.Q™ Assay kit (VolitionRx), an ELISA-based assay using antibodies directed against nucleosomes. RESULTS: For total CCFN (H3), H3K36me3, and H3 citrulline, the same pattern was seen over time: Concentrations were elevated shortly after transplantation (day 3-6) followed by a decline reaching baseline (pre-transplantation) values at days 30 and 180. At times of acute rejection, the median concentration of total CCFN (H3) was significantly higher compared to the stable situation (day 30): 4309 (3435-5285) versus 2885 (1668-3923) ng/mL, p < 0.05, respectively. Total CCFN (H3) had an acceptable ability to discriminate rejection from no rejection (AUC-ROC = 0.73) with a negative predictive value of 92.9%. For both histone modifications (H3K36me3 and H3 citrulline), there was no significant difference between episodes of acute rejection and the stable situation (day 30). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, total CCFN (H3) concentrations are increased at times of acute kidney transplant rejection. The high negative predictive value implies that whenever a patient experiences loss of renal transplant function and the total CCFN (H3) is not increased, causes other than acute rejection should be considered. Clinical implementation of total CCFN (H3) measurement may avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful kidney transplant biopsies.
BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for noninvasive markers specific for kidney transplant rejection. Such a marker may eventually overcome the need for a transplant biopsy. In this pilot study, the potential of circulating cell-free nucleosomes (CCFN) to serve as a biomarker for kidney transplant rejection was evaluated. METHODS: Forty de novo kidney transplant recipients were prospectively followed as part of a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Total CCFN (H3) and CCFN with the histone modifications H3K36me3 and H3 citrulline were measured in patients at four fixed time points: before transplantation and on days 3-6, 30 and 180 after kidney transplantation. In addition, serum collected at times of transplant rejection (n = 14) was analyzed. CCFN were measured with a Nu.Q™ Assay kit (VolitionRx), an ELISA-based assay using antibodies directed against nucleosomes. RESULTS: For total CCFN (H3), H3K36me3, and H3 citrulline, the same pattern was seen over time: Concentrations were elevated shortly after transplantation (day 3-6) followed by a decline reaching baseline (pre-transplantation) values at days 30 and 180. At times of acute rejection, the median concentration of total CCFN (H3) was significantly higher compared to the stable situation (day 30): 4309 (3435-5285) versus 2885 (1668-3923) ng/mL, p < 0.05, respectively. Total CCFN (H3) had an acceptable ability to discriminate rejection from no rejection (AUC-ROC = 0.73) with a negative predictive value of 92.9%. For both histone modifications (H3K36me3 and H3 citrulline), there was no significant difference between episodes of acute rejection and the stable situation (day 30). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, total CCFN (H3) concentrations are increased at times of acute kidney transplant rejection. The high negative predictive value implies that whenever a patient experiences loss of renal transplant function and the total CCFN (H3) is not increased, causes other than acute rejection should be considered. Clinical implementation of total CCFN (H3) measurement may avoid unnecessary and potentially harmful kidney transplant biopsies.
Authors: Gretchen N de Graav; Carla C Baan; Marian C Clahsen-van Groningen; Rens Kraaijeveld; Marjolein Dieterich; Wenda Verschoor; Jan H von der Thusen; Dave L Roelen; Monique Cadogan; Jacqueline van de Wetering; Joost van Rosmalen; Wilem Weimar; Dennis A Hesselink Journal: Transplantation Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jeroen G H P Verhoeven; Karin Boer; Ron H N Van Schaik; Olivier C Manintveld; Manon M H Huibers; Carla C Baan; Dennis A Hesselink Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: A Loupy; M Haas; K Solez; L Racusen; D Glotz; D Seron; B J Nankivell; R B Colvin; M Afrouzian; E Akalin; N Alachkar; S Bagnasco; J U Becker; L Cornell; C Drachenberg; D Dragun; H de Kort; I W Gibson; E S Kraus; C Lefaucheur; C Legendre; H Liapis; T Muthukumar; V Nickeleit; B Orandi; W Park; M Rabant; P Randhawa; E F Reed; C Roufosse; S V Seshan; B Sis; H K Singh; C Schinstock; A Tambur; A Zeevi; M Mengel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Michael Eikmans; Els M Gielis; Kristien J Ledeganck; Jianxin Yang; Daniel Abramowicz; Frans F J Claas Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-01-08
Authors: Yanming Wang; Ming Li; Sonja Stadler; Sarah Correll; Pingxin Li; Danchen Wang; Ryo Hayama; Lauriebeth Leonelli; Hyunsil Han; Sergei A Grigoryev; C David Allis; Scott A Coonrod Journal: J Cell Biol Date: 2009-01-19 Impact factor: 10.539
Authors: M Haas; A Loupy; C Lefaucheur; C Roufosse; D Glotz; D Seron; B J Nankivell; P F Halloran; R B Colvin; Enver Akalin; N Alachkar; S Bagnasco; Y Bouatou; J U Becker; L D Cornell; J P Duong van Huyen; I W Gibson; Edward S Kraus; R B Mannon; M Naesens; V Nickeleit; P Nickerson; D L Segev; H K Singh; M Stegall; P Randhawa; L Racusen; K Solez; M Mengel Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-01-21 Impact factor: 8.086