| Literature DB >> 34489960 |
Ramon M Rodriguez1,2,3, María P Hernández-Fuentes4, Viviana Corte-Iglesias1, María Laura Saiz1, Juan José Lozano5, Ana R Cortazar6, Isabel Mendizabal7,8, María Luisa Suarez-Fernandez9, Eliecer Coto2,10, Antonio López-Vázquez1,2,11, Carmen Díaz-Corte2,9, Ana M Aransay6,12, Carlos López-Larrea1,2,11, Beatriz Suarez-Álvarez1,2.
Abstract
Operational tolerance after kidney transplantation is defined as stable graft acceptance without the need for immunosuppression therapy. However, it is not clear which cellular and molecular pathways are driving tolerance in these patients. We performed genome-wide analysis of DNA methylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from kidney transplant recipients with chronic rejection and operational tolerance from the Genetic Analysis of Molecular Biomarkers of Immunological Tolerance (GAMBIT) study. Our results showed that both clinical stages diverge in 2737 genes, indicating that each one has a specific methylation signature associated with transplant outcome. We also observed that tolerance is associated with demethylation in genes involved in immune function, including B and T cell activation and Th17 differentiation, while in chronic rejection it is associated with intracellular signaling and ubiquitination pathways. Using co-expression network analysis, we selected 12 genomic regions that are specifically hypomethylated or hypermethylated in tolerant patients. Analysis of these genes in transplanted patients with low dose of steroids showed that these have a similar methylation signature to that of tolerant recipients. Overall, these results demonstrate that methylation analysis can mirror the immune status associated with transplant outcome and provides a starting point for understanding the epigenetic mechanisms associated with tolerance.Entities:
Keywords: DNA methylation; epigenetics; kidney transplant; operational tolerance; rejection
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34489960 PMCID: PMC8417883 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.709164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Clinical data of KTR groups and healthy controls.
| HC | TOL | CR | MO | TT | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 7 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Donor (Living/deceased); n | – | 5:4 | 1:5 | 4:3 | 2:5 |
| Recipient age at enrolled; mean (range), y | 51.2 (37-64) | 50.7 (36-63) | 48 (28-62) | 50.4 (39-81) | 40.5 (24-61) |
| Recipient age at transplant; mean (range), y | – | 32.8 (21-58) | 31.3 (7-48) | 28.7 (14-48) | 34.7 (18-55) |
| Recipient gender; n (M:F) | 5:2 | 8:1 | 2:4 | 6:1 | 6:1 |
| IS free; mean (range), y | – | – | – | – | |
| Years IS free; mean (range),y | – | 5.8 (1-9) | – | – | – |
|
| |||||
| No mm | – | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| HLA (A or B) mm | – | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| HLA (A + B) mm | – | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| HLA (A + DR) mm | – | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| HLA (B + DR) mm | – | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| HLA (A, B, DR) mm | – | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| HLA (DR) mm | – | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Missing data | – | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
|
| |||||
| No DSA | – | 7 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| DSA class I | – | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| DSA class II | – | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DSA class I + II | – | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Missing data | – | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
|
| |||||
| MMF | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| CNI + Steroids | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| MMF + Steroids | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| CNI + MMF | – | – | 2 | – | – |
| CNI + Aza + Steroids | – | – | 1 | – | – |
| Steroids | – | – | – | 7 | – |
| CNI + MMF + Steroids | – | – | – | – | 7 |
|
| |||||
| Creatinine; nmols/L | – | 98.5 ± 17.1 | 222.5 ± 133.6 | 91.4 ± 17.1 | 152.7± 55.3 |
| eGFR; mL/min/1.73m2) | – | 75.25 ± 19 | 33.6 ± 15.5 | 80.4 ± 12.4 | 51.4 ± 18.3 |
|
| |||||
| White blood cells x 109 | 6.53 ± 1.5 | 6.75 ± 0.9 | 6.68 ± 1.7 | 6.58 ± 1.5 | 7.4 ± 0.9 |
| Lymphocytes x 109 | 2.2 ± 0.7 | 2.15 ± 0.5 | 0.95 ± 0.3 | 1.42 ± 0.3 | 1.78 ± 0.7 |
Figure 1DNA methylation dynamics associated with transplant outcome. (A) PCA analysis of DNA methylation data from healthy controls (HC), chronic rejection (CR) and operational tolerance (TOL) kidney-transplanted recipients. (B) Weighted gene co-methylation network analysis in kidney transplant recipients. The analysis included all differentially methylated regions between HC, CR and TOL patients (β > 0.2, FDR <0.05). (C) Box plot of eigengene values in each gene cluster. These values are those of the first principal component of the DNA methylation data in each module. The significance of group differences was determined by the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by a post-hoc test.
Figure 2Functional analysis of clusters C10 and C11. (A) Functional interaction networks derived from co-methylated clusters (C10 and C11) obtained from WGCNA analysis, corresponding to DMRs hypomethylated in the TOL group. Network centrality is indicated by the color scale and node size. (B) Gene ontology analysis of clusters C10 and C11.
Figure 3Functional analysis of clusters C12 and C13. (A) Functional interaction networks derived from co-methylated clusters (C12 and C3) obtained from WGCNA analysis, corresponding to DMRs hypomethylated in the CR group. (B) Gene ontology analysis of clusters C12 and C13.
Figure 4Deconvolution analysis of DNA methylation data in KTR. (A) Boxplots for cellular deconvolution by MethylResolver. (B) Boxplots for cellular deconvolution by MethylCIBERSORT. P-values for Wilcoxon’s Rank Sum Tests are shown.
Figure 5DNA methylation analysis of kidney transplant recipients under different immunosuppressive treatment. Bisulfite pyrosequencing of selected DMRs in operationally tolerant patients (TOL), patients with low-dose glucocorticoids as monotherapy (MO) and patients with standard triple-therapy (TT). Results are shown for each patient; lines show the median ± interquartile range.