| Literature DB >> 35074933 |
Alyssa C Gilmore1, Hannah R Wilson1, Thomas D Cairns2, Marina Botto1,2, Liz Lightstone1,2, Ian N Bruce3, Herbert Terence Cook1, Matthew Caleb Pickering4,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the utility of the NanoString platform in elucidating kidney immune transcripts for class III, IV and V lupus nephritis (LN) using a retrospective cohort of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) kidney biopsy tissue.Entities:
Keywords: inflammation; lupus erythematosus; lupus nephritis; systemic
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35074933 PMCID: PMC8788334 DOI: 10.1136/lupus-2021-000615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lupus Sci Med ISSN: 2053-8790
Patient demographics and clinical data
| Lupus nephritis | Lupus nephritis | Lupus nephritis | Thin basement membrane (n=14) | Membranous nephropathy (n=9) | |
| Female/male (%F) | 11/0 (100%) | 23/0 (100%) | 21/0 (100%) | 13/1 (92.9%) | 5/4 (55.6%) |
| Age of patient at time of kidney biopsy (years) | 33 (16–58) | 36 (22–48) | 36 (19–57) | 38.5 (16–67) | 53 (42–73) |
| Disease duration at time of kidney biopsy (years) | 0 (0–17) | 8 (0–28) | 5 (0–32) | ||
| First kidney biopsy—number (%) | 10 (91%) | 13 (57%) | 9 (43%) | ||
| Ethnicity—number (%) | |||||
|
| 2 (18%) | 7 (30%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (28.6%) | 3 (33.3%) |
|
| 5 (45%) | 7 (30%) | 11 (52%) | 1 (7.1%) | 0 (0%) |
|
| 2 (18%) | 8 (35%) | 5 (24%) | 3 (21.4%) | 4 (44.4%) |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 (5%) | 6 (42.9%) | 2 (22.2%) |
|
| 2 (18%) | 1 (4%) | 1 (5%) | ||
| Renal function at time of kidney biopsy: | |||||
|
| 32 (20–41)† | 21 (12–35)‡ | 28 (13-40)§ | 37 (31–47) | 31 (16–40)¶ |
|
| 70 (41–135) | 95 (53–310)†† | 61 (45–146) | 64 (55–179) | 80 (56–180) |
|
| 76 (50–90) | 64 (14–90)‡‡ | 90 (32–90) | 90 (25–90) | 79 (24–90) |
|
| 82 (37–404) | 666 (150–2414)§§ | 307 (0–1463) | 10 (0–443) | 552 (297–729) |
| Age of kidney biopsy at time of analysis (years) | 3.55 (0.11–9.7) | 4.7 (0.3–11.54) | 4.34 (1.32–10.72) | 3.1 (0.2–5) | 1.2 (1–4.6) |
|
| 16 (9–29) | 13 (8–30) | 17 (7–37) | 16.5 (7–32) | 15 (6–26) |
|
| 4 (1–7) | 11 (1–25) | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 (0–4) | 2 (0–10) | 1 (0–9) | 1.5 (0–5) | 1 (0–8) |
|
| 0 (0–2) | 2 (0–10) | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 (0–1) |
|
| 0 (0–1) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 5 (45%) | 1 (4.3%) | 0 (0%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 5 (45%) | 16 (70%) | 9 (43%) | 0 | 0 |
|
| 10 (91%) | 18 (78%) | 17 (81%) | 0 | 1 (11.1%) |
|
| 0 (0–20; n=3) | 5 (0–40; n=13) | 5 (0–25; n=11) | 2.5 (0–10) | 10 (0–50) |
| C3 g/L (NR 0.7–1.7) | 0.52 (0.22–0.76) | 0.6 (0.23–1.22) | 1.09 (0.49–1.82)¶¶ | ||
| C4 g/L (NR 0.16–0.54) | 0.06 (0–0.25) | 0.09 (0.03–0.22) | 0.19 (0.07–0.46)††† | ||
| dsDNA IU/mL (NR 0–30) | 2041 (248–20171) | 275 (17–5789)‡‡‡ | 41 (0–723)§§§ | ||
| Treatment | |||||
|
| 10 | 13 | 9 | ||
|
| 10 (100%) | 11 (85%) | 4 (44%) | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (8%) | 1 (11%) | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (8%) | 1 (11%) | ||
|
| 0 | 0.0 | 3 (33.3%) | ||
|
| 1 | 10 | 12 | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 3 (25%) | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 2 (17%) | ||
|
| 1 (100%) | 6 (60%) | 0 | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 7 (58%) | ||
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
|
| 0 | 1 (10%) | 0 | ||
| Response | |||||
|
| 9 (82%)/1 (9%)/1 (9%) | 10 (43%)/0/13 (57%) | 11 (52%)/3 (14%)/7 (33%) |
Values represent median (range of values) or number (%).
†* vs TBM.
‡**** vs TBM and ** vs class III.
§**** vs TBM.
¶** vs TBM.
††* vs class III and *** vs class IV.
‡‡** vs class IV.
§§*** vs class III and ** vs class V and **** vs TBM
¶¶**** vs class III or class IV.
†††*** vs class III or class IV.
‡‡‡* vs class III.
§§§** vs class III.
*P≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001, ****p≤0.0001 derived from ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparisons test.
ANOVA, analysis of variance; CYC, cyclophosphamide; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; NR, normal range; RTX, rituximab; TBM, thin basement membrane.
Figure 1DGE in LN compared with TBM disease. (A) Volcano plot depicting DGE of LN (n=55 biopsies) vs TBM disease (n=14 biopsies). Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p=0.05 and log2 FC cut-off=0.5. (B) STRING interaction network for all 171 significant differentially expressed genes between LN and TBM (highest confidence score=0.9). Red nodes—type I IFN; blue nodes—complement cascade; pink nodes—MHC II; yellow nodes—JAK-STAT signalling; purple nodes—integrin binding; light green nodes—NF-κB+TIR domain; dark green nodes—NF-κB and apoptosis modulation. (C) Heatmap of all significantly increased differentially expressed transcripts with log2 FC ≥1 (n=49) and all significantly downregulated transcripts with log2 FC ≤−0.5 (n=5) identified in LN vs TBM, across the entire cohort (LN n=55 biopsies, MN n=9 biopsies, TBM n=14 biopsies). DGE, differential gene expression; FC, fold change; LN, lupus nephritis; MN, membranous nephropathy; NS, non-significant; TBM, thin basement membrane.
Figure 2DGE in class V lupus nephritis compared with idiopathic MN. (A) Volcano plot depicting DGE of class V LN (n=21 biopsies) vs MN (n=9 biopsies). Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p=0.05 and log2 FC cut-off=0.5. (B) STRING interaction network for all 26 significant differentially expressed genes between class V LN and MN (highest confidence score=0.9). Red nodes—type I IFN; orange nodes—regulation of type III IFN. (C) Heatmap of type I IFN-associated genes across the entire cohort (LN n=55 biopsies, MN n=9 biopsies, TBM n=14 biopsies). IFN status refers to blood IFN score (see methods). DGE, differential gene expression; FC, fold change; MN, membranous nephropathy; TRI, tubuloreticular inclusions.
Figure 3Immune gene expression analyses in LN subclasses. (A–C) Volcano plots depicting differentially expressed genes in (A) class III LN (n=11 biopsies), (B) class IV LN (n=23 biopsies) and (C) class V LN (n=21 biopsies) vs TBM disease (n=14 biopsies). Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p=0.05 and log2 FC cut-off=0.5. (D) Area proportional Venn diagram of overlapping differentially expressed genes between class III (63 genes), class IV (205 genes) and class V (95 genes) LN. (E, F) STRING interaction networks using the highest confidence score (0.9) for all 52 significant differentially expressed genes that were common to all LN classes (E) and all 105 genes that were only significant in class IV LN (F). Red nodes—type I IFN; blue nodes—complement cascade; pink nodes—MHC II; orange nodes—regulation of type III IFN; light green nodes—NF-κB+TIR domain; purple nodes—positive regulation of ROS metabolic process; brown nodes—positive regulation of pepsidase activity. (G, H) Plots comparing the effect sizes of all 205 differentially expressed genes in class IV LN with either class III LN (G) or class V LN (H). Data points are coloured according to groups defined in the Venn diagram (D), with intersections shown in purple. FC, fold change; LN, lupus nephritis; TBM, thin basement membrane.
Figure 4Differential gene expression between class IV and class V LN. Volcano plots depicting differential gene expression (DGE) of class IV (n=23 biopsies) vs class V (n=21 biopsies). Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p=0.05 and log2 FC cut-off=0.5. (B) STRING interaction network for 167 significant differentially expressed genes with expression higher in class IV vs class V (highest confidence score=0.9). Red nodes—type I IFN; blue nodes—complement cascade; pink nodes—MHC II; yellow nodes—JAK-STAT signalling; purple nodes—integrin binding; light green nodes—NF-κB+TIR domain; dark green nodes—NF-κB and apoptosis modulation. FC, fold change; LN, lupus nephritis; NS, non-significant.