| Literature DB >> 35071278 |
Wenyu Xiang1,2,3,4, Shuai Han1,2,3,4, Cuili Wang1,2,3,4, Hongjun Chen1,2,3,4, Lingling Shen1,2,3,4, Tingting Zhu1,2,3,4, Kai Wang5, Wenjie Wei6, Jing Qin5, Nelli Shushakova7, Song Rong7, Hermann Haller7, Hong Jiang1,2,3,4, Jianghua Chen1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Acute rejection (AR) is closely associated with renal allograft dysfunction. Here, we utilised RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) and bioinformatic methods to characterise the peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients with acute renal allograft rejection. Pretransplant blood samples were collected from 32 kidney allograft donors and 42 corresponding recipients with biopsies classified as T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR, n = 18), antibody-mediated rejection (ABMR, n = 5), and normal/non-specific changes (non-AR, n = 19). The patients with TCMR and ABMR were assigned to the AR group, and the patients with normal/non-specific changes (n = 19) were assigned to the non-AR group. We analysed RNA-Seq data for identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs), and then gene ontology (GO) analysis, Reactome, and ingenuity pathway analysis (IPA), protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, and cell-type enrichment analysis were utilised for bioinformatics analysis. We identified DEGs in the PBMCs of the non-AR group when compared with the AR, ABMR, and TCMR groups. Pathway and GO analysis showed significant inflammatory responses, complement activation, interleukin-10 (IL-10) signalling pathways, classical antibody-mediated complement activation pathways, etc., which were significantly enriched in the DEGs. PPI analysis showed that IL-10, VEGFA, CXCL8, MMP9, and several histone-related genes were the hub genes with the highest degree scores. Moreover, IPA analysis showed that several proinflammatory pathways were upregulated, whereas antiinflammatory pathways were downregulated. The combination of NFSF14+TANK+ANKRD 33 B +HSPA1B was able to discriminate between AR and non-AR with an AUC of 92.3% (95% CI 82.8-100). Characterisation of PBMCs by RNA-Seq and bioinformatics analysis demonstrated gene signatures and biological pathways associated with AR. Our study may provide the foundation for the discovery of biomarkers and an in-depth understanding of acute renal allograft rejection.Entities:
Keywords: PBMCs; RNA-Seq; actue renal allograft rejection; bioinformatics; biomarker
Year: 2022 PMID: 35071278 PMCID: PMC8777044 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.799051
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) ISSN: 2296-858X
Demographic and clinical characteristics of kidney allograft recipients.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recipient age (years) | 38.2 ± 1.7 | 38.3 ± 9.2 | 38.5 ± 11.3 | 0.067 |
| Recipient sex (male %) | 61.9 | 63.2 | 60.9 | 0.879 |
| Dialysis vintage (months) | 11.4 (2.75–51.95) | 7.45 (0–23.25) | 32.95 (5.83–66.5) |
|
| Antithymocyte globulin | 12 (28.57) | 4 (21.05) | 8 (34.78) | |
| Basiliximab | 29 (69.05) | 15 (78.95) | 14 (60.87) | 0.301 |
| Both | 1 (2.38) | 0 (0) | 1 (4.35) | |
| Glomerulonephritis | 31 (73.81) | 16 (84.21) | 15 (65.22) | |
| Hypertension | 4 (9.52) | 0 (0) | 4 (17.39) | 0.086 |
| Polycystic kidney disease | 1 (2.38) | 0 (0) | 1 (4.35) | |
| Others | 6 (14.29) | 3 (15.79) | 3 (13.04) | |
| Donor age (years) | 53 (41.75–58) | 55 (46.5–59) | 49 (38.25–57.5) | 0.187 |
| Donor sex (male %) | 57.1 | 52.6 | 60.9 | 0.591 |
| Y | 16 (38.1) | 3 (15.79) | 13 (56.52) |
|
| N | 26 (61.9) | 16 (84.21) | 10 (43.48) | |
| Mismatch (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Mismatch (l−2) | 15 (35.71) | 7 (36.84) | 8 (34.78) | 0.385 |
| Mismatch (3–4) | 24 (57.14) | 12 (63.16) | 12 (52.17) | |
| Mismatch (0) | 9 (21.43) | 5 (26.32) | 4 (17.39) | 0.270 |
| Mismatch (l) | 31 (73.81) | 14 (73.68) | 17 (73.91) | |
| Mismatch (2) | 2 (4.76) | 0 (0) | 2 (8.7) | |
| Mismatch (0) | 6 (14.29) | 2 (10.53) | 4 (17.39) | |
| Mismatch (l) | 30 (71.43) | 16 (84.21) | 14 (60.87) | 0.567 |
| Mismatch (2) | 6 (14.29) | 1 (5.26) | 5 (21.74) | |
| Mismatch (0) | 3 (7.14) | 2 (10.53) | 1 (4.35) | 0.622 |
| Mismatch (l) | 32 (76.19) | 14 (73.68) | 18 (78.26) | |
| Mismatch (2) | 7 (16.7) | 3 (15.79) | 4 (17.39) | |
| CIT (mins) | 180 (120–480) | 150 (120–255) | 275 (120–585) | 0.065 |
| Y | 1 (2.38) | 0 (0) | 1(4–35) | 1.000 |
| N | 41 (97.62) | 19 (100) | 22 (95.65) | |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 18.33 ± 0.98 | 16.32 ± 5.57 | 19.76 ± 6.64 | 0.751 |
| SCR (umol/L) | 775 ± 47 | 701 ± 297 | 820 ± 263 | 0.523 |
| GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | 7.45(5.13–10.45) | 9.7 (6.5–12.43) | 5.85 (4.68–8.35) |
|
| UPRO (g/L) | 2.54 ± 0.23 | 2.39 ± 1.01 | 2.49 ± 1.66 | 0.050 |
| UA (umol/L) | 369 ± 17 | 352 ± 102 | 382 ± 112 | 0.866 |
Numbers are presented as mean ± SD, median (25–75 percentiles) or count (percentage %). AR, acute rejection; non-AR, non-acute rejection; CIT, cold ischaemia time; DGF, delayed graft function; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; SCR, serum creatinine; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; UPRO, urine protein; UA, uric acid. The bold values represent there are statistical differences between the patients with AR and non-AR.
Figure 1DEGs and GO analysis (AR and non-AR recipients). (A) Volcano map of DEGs in AR vs. non-AR recipients. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. A total of 975 DEGs were identified, among which 776 were upregulated and 199 were downregulated in patients with AR compared with patients with non-AR. (B) Hierarchical clustering heatmap analysis of DEGs. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. (C) GO and pathway analysis of upregulated DEGs. GOs of inflammatory response and IL-10 signalling were the most significant items. (D) GO and pathway analysis of downregulated DEGs. GOs of the complement activation and classical antibody-mediated complement activation pathway were the most significant items.
Figure 2DEGs and GO analysis (ABMR and non-AR recipients). (A) Volcano map of DEGs in ABMR vs. non-AR recipients. Red and blue represent upregulated and downregulated genes, respectively. A total of 1,036 genes were identified as DEGs in PBMCs of patients with ABMR, among which 730 were upregulated and 306 were downregulated. (B) Hierarchical clustering heatmap analysis of DEGs. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. (C) GO and pathway analysis of upregulated DEGs. GOs of inflammatory response and IL-10 signalling were significantly enriched. (D) GO and pathway analysis of downregulated DEGs. GOs of the complement activation and classical antibody-mediated complement activation pathway were significantly enriched.
Figure 3DEGs and GO analysis in (TCMR and non-AR recipients). (A) Volcano map of DEGs in TCMR vs. non-AR recipients. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. A total of 1,375 genes were identified as DEGs in PBMCs of patients with TCMR, among which 936 were upregulated and 439 were downregulated. (B) Hierarchical clustering heatmap analysis of DEGs. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. (C) GO and pathway analysis of upregulated DEGs. GOs of inflammatory response and IL-10 signalling were the most significant enrichments. (D) GO and pathway analysis of downregulated DEGs. GOs of the complement activation and the classical antibody-mediated complement activation pathway were the most significant enrichments.
Figure 4DEGs and GO analysis (donors with AR and non-AR). Volcano map of DEGs in TCMR vs. non-AR recipients. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. A total of 1472 upregulated and 505 downregulated genes were identified as DEGs in donors with AR (n = 13) compared with non-AR (n = 18). (B) Hierarchical clustering heatmap analysis of DEGs. Red represents upregulated genes, and blue represents downregulated genes. (C) GO and pathway analysis of upregulated DEGs. (D) GO and pathway analysis of downregulated DEGs.
Figure 5Cell-type enrichment analysis using xCell and CIBERSORT. (A) Cell-type enrichment analysis of the recipients RNA-Seq data determined using xCell, a bioinformatics tool that generates cell-type ESs based on gene expression data for 64 immune and stromal cell types. The x-axis depicts the xCell ES, and the y-axis lists 14 of the 64 cell types that were differentially enriched (FDR < 0.1, Wilcoxon test with Benjamini-Hochberg correction) in AR vs. non-AR recipients. Box plots of the immune score (composite score of immune cell types) and the microenvironment score (composite scores of immune cell types and stromal cell types) are also shown. (B, C) Immune cell enrichment analysis of the recipients using CIBERSORT. The bar chart shows the relative (B) and absolute (C) leukocyte cell subset population differences between AR and non-AR recipients. The population percentages of CD8+ T cells and Tregs were deconvoluted from the RNA-Seq using the expression profiles of sorted immune cells. (D) Cell type enrichment analysis using xCell between donors with AR and non-AR. (E–F) Immune cell enrichment analysis of the donors using Cibersort. The bar chart shows the relative (E) and absolute (F) leukocyte cell subset population differences between donors with AR and non-AR.
Figure 6IPA analysis of DEGs. (A) IPA analysis of DEGs in AR vs. non-AR group. IL-6 and IL-8 signalling, etc. had a positive Z-score, whereas LXR/RXR activation and PPAR signalling had a negative Z-score. (B) IPA analysis of DEGs in ABMR vs. non-AR group. Hepatic fibrosis pathway, IL-6 and IL-8 signalling, etc., had a positive Z-score, whereas LXR/RXR activation and PPAR signalling had a negative Z-score. (C) IPA analysis of DEGs in TCMR vs. non-AR group. Hepatic fibrosis signalling pathway and IL-6 signalling, etc. had a positive Z-score, whereas LXR/RXR activation signalling had a negative Z-score. (D) IPA analysis of DEGs in donors with AR vs. non-AR group. LPS/IL-1-mediated inhibition of RXR function and TREM1 signalling etc. had a positive Z-score and LXR/RXR activation signalling had a negative Z-score.
Figure 7PPI networks of DEGs and ROC curves for diagnosis of AR. (A) The PPI network of DEGs detected in AR vs. non-AR groups was performed with Cytoscape. (B) The hub genes were identified by the CytoHubba plugin with the top 10-degree score. (C) Box plots of the mRNA expression. (D) ROC curves were constructed to determine the diagnostic power of DEGs for AR. TNFSF14: AUC 79.5 (95% CI, 65.1–93.9); TANK: AUC 78.3 (95% CI, 63.4–93.1); ANKRD33B: AUC 80.5 (95% CI, 65.8–95.2); HSPA1B: AUC 79.3 (95% CI, 63.7–94.8); NFSF14+TANK+ANKRD33B+HSPA1B: AUC 92.3 (95% CI, 82.8–100).