| Literature DB >> 33959273 |
Huanzi Dai1, Wei Hu1,2, Lirong Lin1, Liming Wang1, Jia Chen1, Yani He1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accelerated senescence of renal tubular epithelial cells (RTECs) might contribute to immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN) progression. This study aimed to determine whether the RTEC senescence marker, decoy receptor 2 (DcR2), could predict prognosis in IgAN.Entities:
Keywords: DcR2; IgA nephropathy; predictor; renal outcome; senescence
Year: 2021 PMID: 33959273 PMCID: PMC8087134 DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfaa257
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Kidney J ISSN: 2048-8505
FIGURE 1:Flowchart of patient recruitment.
Clinical characteristics of 105 patients with IgAN at biopsy and follow-up
| At biopsy | Variable | Follow-up | Variable |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 39.5 ± 13.0 | Duration of follow-up, months | 78 (69–91) |
| Males | 64, 60.9 | Clinical outcome | |
| Hypertension, % | 31, 29.5 | Composite renal outcome | 26, 24.7 |
| MAP, mmHg, % | 95.2 ± 18.0 | 30% decline in eGFR | 24, 22.8 |
| Hemoglobin, g/L, % | 126.9 ± 17.2 | ESRD | 14, 13.3 |
| Serum albumin, g/L | 33.1 ± 9.9 | Rate of renal function decline, mL/min/1.73 m2/year | −1.8 ± 6.7 |
| Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 356.3 ± 111.5 | Treatment | |
| Serum creatinine, μmol/L | 99.8 ± 51.2 | Median number of antihypertensive drugs | 1.8 (1.6–2.0) |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2, % | 89.8 ± 37.2 | RAS inhibitor | 86, 81.9 |
|
| 39.3, 33.8, 23.1 and 4.8 | Immunosuppression, | 58, 55.2 |
| Proteinuria, g/day, % | 1.9 (0.7–3.7) | Prednisone, | 57, 54.3 |
| Other, | 14, 13.3 | ||
Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD or median (interquartile ranges). Categorical variables are expressed as number (percent).
CKD Stages 1–4 denote eGFR ≥ 90, 60–89, 30–59 and 15–29 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively, according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative.
FIGURE 2:DcR2 immunostaining in renal biopsy tissues from controls and patients with IgAN. (A) Representative micrographs showing immunohistochemical staining of DcR2 expression in IgAN (n = 105) and controls (n = 15). (B and C) Quantification of DcR2 expression in RTECs. #P ˂ 0.05 versus control; &P ˂ 0.05 versus T0; *P ˂ 0.05 versus T1.
FIGURE 3:Co-expression analysis of DcR2 with the senescence marker p16 in renal biopsy tissues from controls and patients with IgAN. (A) Tubular DcR2 (red) co-expressed with p16 (green). (B) Quantification of the percentages of p16 and DcR2 expression in RTECs. (C) Distribution of p16 positive RTECs among DcR2 positive and DcR2 negative RTECs. (D) Quantification of the percentages of co-expression of DcR2 and p16 in RTECs. #P ˂ 0.05 versus control; &P ˂ 0.05 versus T0; *P ˂ 0.05 versus T1.
Comparison of characteristics of the subjects at biopsy according to tubular DcR2 expression
| Variable | Tubular DcR2 expression | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DcR2 ˂25% group ( | DcR2 ≥25% group ( | ||
| Age, years | 37.2 ± 10.26 | 45.5 ± 9.3 | 0.03 |
| Male | 29 (40.2%) | 12 (36.3%) | 0.551 |
| Hypertension, % | 19 (26.3) | 8 (24.2) | 0.593 |
| Hemoglobin, g/L | 132 ± 16 | 114 ± 12 | 0.000 |
| Serum albumin, g/L | 34 ± 10.6 | 31 ± 7.2 | 0.303 |
| Serum uric acid, μmol/L | 329 ± 107 | 413 ± 99 | 0.000 |
| Serum creatinine, μmol/L | 80 ± 42 | 144 ± 74 | 0.000 |
| eGFR, mL/min/1.73 m2 | 103 ± 31 | 56 ± 27 | 0.000 |
| Proteinuria, g/24 h | 1.3 (0.8, 1.8) | 2.4 (1.6, 3.1) | 0.017 |
| Oxford MEST-C, | |||
| M1 | 69 (95.8) | 31 (93.9) | 0.237 |
| E1 | 46 (63.8) | 23 (69.6) | 0.191 |
| S1 | 30 (41.6) | 18 (54.5) | 0.085 |
| T1 | 13 (18.06) | 21 (63.64) | 0.000 |
| T2 | 0 (0) | 4 (12.12) | 0.007 |
| C1 | 7 (9.7) | 3 (9.0) | 0.621 |
| C2 | 1 (1.3) | 3 (9.0) | 0.056 |
MEST-C, histologic score based on mesangial hypercellularity, the presence of endocapillary proliferation, segmental glomerulosclerosis/adhesion and severity of tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis and crescents formation.
Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD or median (interquartile ranges). Categorical variables are expressed as number (percent).
P-values were calculated by an independent samples t test or chi-squared test or Mann–Whitney test.
FIGURE 4:Associations between tubular DcR2 expression and renal tubulointerstitial injury. (A) Scatter plot with fitted value intervals for percent tubular expression of DcR2 and tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis. (B) Scatter plot with fitted value intervals for percent tubular expression of DcR2 and tubulointerstitial inflammation.
Comparison of characteristics of the subjects during follow-up according to tubular DcR2 expression
| Variable | Tubular DcR2 expression | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| DcR2 ˂25% group ( | DcR2 ≥25% group ( | ||
| Duration of follow-up, months | 79 (76–83) | 83 (77–88) | 0.294 |
| Clinical outcome, % | |||
| Composite renal outcome | 4 (5.5) | 22 (66.6) | 0.000 |
| 30% decline in eGFR | 4 (5.5) | 20 (60.6) | 0.000 |
| ESRD | 2 (2.7) | 12 (36.3) | 0.000 |
| Treatment, % | |||
| Median number of antihypertensive drugs | 1.2 ± 0.9 | 2.0 ± 1.1 | 0.000 |
| RAS inhibitor | 60 (83.3) | 26 (78.7) | 0.474 |
| Immunosuppression | 38 (52.7) | 20 (60.6) | 0.170 |
| Prednisone | 36 (50.0) | 20 (60.6) | 0.127 |
| Other | 6 (8.3) | 8 (22.2) | 0.021 |
Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD or median (interquartile ranges).
Categorical variables are expressed as number (percent).
P-values were calculated by an independent samples t-test or chi-squared test or Mann–Whitney test.
FIGURE 5:Kaplan–Meier survival curves for tubular DcR2 expression. Displayed are the incidence of the composite renal outcome (A) and the individual components that define 30% decline in eGFR (B) or ESRD (C).
Univariate followed by multiple linear regression model testing associations of tubular DcR2 expression with the rate of renal function decline
| Rate of renal function decline (linear regression) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tubular DcR2 expression | Univariate slope, mL/ min/1.73 m2/year | Multivariate, β (SD) | ||||
| Model A | Model B | Model C | Model D | Model E | ||
| DcR2 ˂25% group | −0.4 ± 4.1 | −3.3 (1.4) | −2.9 (1.3) | −2.5 (1.2) | −2.1 (1.1) | −2.0 (1.0) |
| DcR2 ≥25% group | −3.4 ± 7.2 | |||||
| P-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.008 |
Model A was adjusted for age and sex.
Model B was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria and eGFR.
Model C was adjusted for tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis (T1–T2 score).
Model D was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria, eGFR and T scores.
Model E was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria, eGFR and T scores and follow-up immunosuppressive therapy.
Univariate and multivariate cox regression models testing associations of tubular DcR2 expression with incidence of the composite renal outcome
| 30% decline in eGFR or ESRD (Cox regression) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tubular DcR2 expression | Univariate HR (95% CI) | Multivariate HR (95% CI) | ||||
| Model A | Model B | Model C | Model D | Model E | ||
| DcR2 ˂ 5% group | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (Reference) | 1.0 (Reference) |
| DcR2 ≥25% group | 8.7 (3.6–9.2) | 7.9 (3.0–14.2) | 4.4 (2.2–9.5) | 2.9 (1.2–7.7) | 2.1 (1.1–6.2) | 1.8 (1.0–5.1) |
| P-value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
Model A was adjusted for age and sex.
Model B was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria and eGFR.
Model C was adjusted for tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis (T1–T2 score).
Model D was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria, eGFR and T scores.
Model E was adjusted for hypertension, proteinuria, eGFR and T scores and follow-up immunosuppressive therapy.
Area under the ROC curve for various variables for the composite renal outcome
| Variable | Value | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | AUC (95% CI) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tubular DcR2 | 25.5 | 81.6 | 80.7 | 0.86 (0.79–0.96) | 0.000 | |
| MAP | 83.2 | 83.0 | 40.0 | 0.61 (0.49–0.73) | 0.086 | |
| Proteinuria | 1.2 | 84.6 | 63.3 | 0.75 (0.75) | 0.000 | |
| eGFR | 66.0 | 70.5 | 81.6 | 0.81 (0.72–0.90) | 0.000 | |
| MEST-C | 2.5 | 70.0 | 79.6 | 0.77 (0.65–0.88) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+MAP | −1.12 | 82.1 | 72.4 | 0.82 (0.72–0.91) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+proteinuria | −1.21 | 81.7 | 74.7 | 0.83 (0.73–0.92) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+eGFR | −1.33 | 76.8 | 80.8 | 0.84 (0.75–0.94) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+MEST-C | −0.77 | 80.0 | 80.4 | 0.85 (0.76–0.95) | 0.000 | |
| Clinical data at biopsy | −1.26 | 76.9 | 75.0 | 0.79 (0.69–0.88) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+clinical data at biopsy | −1.41 | 78.0 | 81.1 | 0.84 (0.76–0.95) | 0.000 | |
| Clinical data at biopsy+MEST-C | −0.813 | 80.9 | 80.8 | 0.85 (0.77–0.96) | 0.000 | |
| Tubular DcR2+clinical data at biopsy+MEST-C | −1.6 | 84.6 | 81.6 | 0.88 (0.80–0.96) | 0.000 |
Representing the percentage of DcR2-positive RTECs.
Comprising MAP, proteinuria and eGFR at biopsy.
FIGURE 6:ROC curve analysis of various variables for the composite renal outcome in patients with IgAN.