4.7 Article

Molecular Phenotypes of Acute Rejection Predict Kidney Graft Prognosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 173-180

Publisher

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2008121268

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic [MZO 00023001, NR/9388-3/2007]
  2. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Earlier detection of antibody-mediated rejection of kidney allografts may improve graft outcomes. Profiling of gene expression holds promise for the diagnosis and prognosis of antibody-mediated rejection. Here, we identified 730 patients who received kidney transplants during 2002-2005, including 21 patients (2.9%) who experienced early acute antibody-mediated rejection. We also identified a matched group of 43 patients with early acute T cell-mediated rejection to serve as controls. Compared with patients with T cell-mediated rejection, those with antibody-mediated rejection had significantly higher intrarenal mRNA expression of the cytoprotective heme oxygenase-1 but had lower expression of the regulatory T cell marker forkhead box P3 (FoxP3), the B cell marker CD20, and the chemokine regulated upon activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted (RANTES). T cell infiltration was similar in both groups of patients. Compared with grafts that had a favorable course, those that failed as a result of anti body-mediated rejection had expression profiles suggesting a lack of regulation (less FoxP3, TGF-beta 1, RANTES, and CD20). Grafts that failed as a result of T cell-mediated rejection only revealed lower expression of CD20 mRNA. In summary, these data suggest that severe antibody-mediated rejection and T cell-mediated rejection result in graft loss by distinct mechanisms. Molecular phenotypes of early acute rejection might help to identify grafts with poor prognosis, allowing earlier application of additional therapies.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available