| Literature DB >> 36110856 |
Michiel G H Betjes1, Emma T M Peereboom2, Henny G Otten2, Eric Spierings2.
Abstract
The role of the indirect T-cell recognition pathway of allorecognition in acute T cell-mediated rejection (aTCMR) is not well defined. The amount of theoretical T-cell epitopes available for indirect allorecognition can be quantified for donor-recipient combinations by the Predicted Indirectly ReCognizable HLA Epitopes algorithm (PIRCHE-II). The PIRCHE-II score was calculated for 688 donor kidney-recipient combinations and associated with the incidence of first-time diagnosed cases of TCMR. A diagnosis of TCMR was made in 182 cases; 121 cases of tubulo-interstitial rejection cases (79 cases of borderline TCMR, 42 cases of TCMR IA-B) and 61 cases of vascular TCMR (TCMR II-III). The PIRCHE-II score for donor HLA-DR/DQ (PIRCHE-II DR/DQ) was highly associated with vascular rejection. At one year after transplantation, the cumulative percentage of recipients with a vascular rejection was 12.7%, 8.6% and 2.1% within respectively the high, medium and low tertile of the PIRCHE-II DR/DQ score (p<0.001). In a multivariate regression analysis this association remained significant (p<0.001 for PIRCHE-II DR/DQ tertiles). The impact of a high PIRCHE-II DR/DQ score was mitigated by older recipient age and a living donor kidney. In conclusion, indirect antigen presentation of donor HLA-peptides may significantly contribute to the risk for acute vascular rejection.Entities:
Keywords: PIRCHE-II; T cell-mediated acute cellular rejection; kidney; transplantation; vascular rejection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36110856 PMCID: PMC9468767 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.973968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Clinical and demographic characteristics of 688 recipients and kidney donors.
| Age recipient (average +/- SD) | 45.6 years (13.6) |
|---|---|
| Age donor in years (average +/- SD) | 46.6 years (14.3) |
| Recipient male/female ratio | 48/52% |
| Deceased/living donor kidney | 48/52% |
| Cold ischaemia time (average +/- SD) | 10.9 hours (10.9) |
| Re-transplantation | 18% |
| Mean PRA at transplantation | 10% |
| Total HLA mismatches (mean) | 2.5 |
| HLA mismatches class I | 1.7 |
| HLA mismatches class II | 0.9 |
| Follow-up (median and IQR) | 13.2 years (6–15) |
| Recipients with anti-HLA DSA at time transplantation | 21% |
| Induction therapy | |
| - Anti-IL-2 receptor antibody | 5% |
| Maintenance immune suppressive medication | |
| - steroids | 90% |
| - tacrolimus/cyclosporine | 60%/38% |
| - MMF/azathioprine | 70%/0.5% |
| - other | 0.9% |
| T cell-mediated rejection, total number | 182 |
| - borderline rejection | 79 (43%) |
| - tubulo-interstitial rejection (TCMR1a-b) | 42 (23%) |
| - vascular rejection (TCMR2-3) | 61 (34%) |
PRA:panel reactive antibodies, DSA:donor specific anti-HLA antibodies.
Figure 1The PIRCHE-II score for donor HLA I and HLA II (DR/DQ) given in box-whisker plots for the different groups of recipients; no T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR), borderline TCMR, tubule-interstitial TCMR grade 1 and vascular TCMR grade 2-3. The p-value for the Kruskal-Waliss test for difference between multiple groups was <0.001. Post-hoc analysis for comparison between groups: *p<0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001.
Figure 2Rejection-free survival curves (Kaplan-Meier) for groups of recipients stratified for tertiles of the PIRCHE-II score for HLA I and HLA II (DR/DQ). Separate graphs show the survival curves for T cell mediated rejection: TCMR-1 in the top panels (tubulo-interstitial rejection; borderline rejection and TCMR Banff grade 1) and TCMR-2 in the lower panels (vascular rejection; TCMR Banff grade 2-3).
Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis for T-cell mediated rejection borderline and Banff grade 1.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p-value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Recipient age per decade | 0.81 (0.71-0.93) | 0.003 | 0.80 (0.71-0.92) | 0.002 |
| Donor age per decade | 1.09 (0.95-1.26) | 0.19 | – | – |
| Deceased vs living kidney donor | 1.14 (0.79-1.63) | 0.47 | – | – |
| Re-transplantation | 0.93 (0.57-1.50) | 0.77 | – | – |
| PRA >4% | 1.29 (0.88-1.90) | 0.18 | – | – |
| DSA pre-transplantation present | 0.77 (0.48-1.24) | 0.29 | – | – |
| PIRCHE-II score HLA class-I per tertile | 1.10 (0.88-1.37) | 0.37 | – | – |
| PIRCHE-II score HLA-DR/DQ per tertile | 0.08 | 0.04 | ||
| - Lowest tertile vs middle tertile | 1.51 (0.95-2.40) | 0.08 | 1.61 (1.01-2.57) | 0.04 |
| - Lowest tertile vs highest tertile | 1.62 (1.03-1.54) | 0.03 | 1.75 (1.09-2.69) | 0.02 |
Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard analysis for T-cell mediated rejection Banff grade 2-3.
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p-value | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p-value | |
| Recipient age per decade | 0.86 (0.71-1.01) | 0.10 | 0.81 (0.66-0.96) | 0.03 |
| Donor age per decade | 1.06 (0.87-1.28) | 0.54 | – | – |
| Deceased vs living kidney donor | 2.01 (1.20-3.37 | 0.008 | 2.39 (1.42-4.04) | 0.002 |
| Re-transplantation | 1.25 (0.68-2.32) | 0.46 | – | – |
| PRA >4% | 1.80 (1.09-3.03) | 0.02 | 1.65 (0.99-2.77) | 0.05 |
| DSA pre-transplantation present | 1.49 (0.86-2.58) | 0.15 | – | – |
| PIRCHE-II score HLA class-I per tertile | 1.23 (0.98-1.67) | 0.18 | – | – |
| PIRCHE-II score HLA-DR/DQ per tertile | 0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| - lowest tertile vs middle tertile | 3.13 (1.4-7.0) | 0.005 | 3.36 (1.49-7.58) | 0.003 |
| - lowest tertile vs highest tertile | 4.46 (2.05-9.71) | <0.001 | 5.34 (2.44-11.7) | <0.001 |
Figure 3Incidence of vascular rejection (TCMR Banff grade 2-3) in relation to recipient age groups and PIRCHE-II DR/DQ tertiles for living and deceased donor kidneys.
Figure 4The relation between the PIRCH-II scores and acute vasculair rejection indicates that indirect antigen presentation of donor-derived MHC molecules potentiates the alloreactive cytotoxic T cell response. The mechanism proposed is semi-direct antigen presentation combined with direct antigen presentation. This requires that recipient dendritic cells (DC) cross-dressed with donor HLA-molecules (causing direct antigen presentation) is combined with indirect antigen presentation by the same DC to recipient T cells by via immunogenic donor HLA-II peptides (predicted by the PIRCHE score) loaded on the recipient HLA-II molecules. Renal endothelial cells (in red) constitutively express HLA-I and -II and are the source for intact donor-derived HLA molecules and the donor HLA-derived peptides that can be presented by recipient HLA-II (PIRCHE-II peptide). The recipient kidney DC (light grey cell) loaded with donor HLA II peptides on their HLA II molecules migrates to lymphoid tissue and stimulates recipient CD4+ T cells (indirect pathway). When the recipient dendritic cell is simultaneously cross-dressed with intact donor HLA molecules, the indirectly activated CD4+ T cells can provide help for directly alloreactive recipient CD4+ or CD8+ T cells (known as the semidirect pathway). The indirectly activated recipient CD4+ T cells may also promote the activation of alloreactive T cells recognizing donor HLA on the donor kidney-derived DC (direct pathway; orange cell). The activated alloreactive T cells attack the donor endothelial cells and migrate into the subendothelial tissue (vascular rejection).