4.7 Article Publication with Expression of Concern

De novo development of circulating anti-endothelial cell antibodies rather than pre-existing antibodies is associated with post-transplant allograft rejection (Publication with Expression of Concern. See vol. 96, pg. 795, 2019)

Journal

KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 79, Issue 6, Pages 655-662

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1038/ki.2010.437

Keywords

acute rejection; renal transplantation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81070593, 30600572]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anti-endothelial cell antibodies (AECAs) are thought to be involved in the development of renal allograft rejection. To explore this further, we determine whether AECAs play a role both in predicting the incidence of allograft rejection and long-term outcomes by analysis of serum samples from 226 renal allograft recipients for AECAs pre- and post-transplant. Surprisingly, the presence of pre-existing AECAs was not associated with either an increased risk of rejection or a detrimental impact on recipient/graft survival. Subsequent de novo AECAs, however, were associated with a significantly increased risk of early acute rejection. Moreover, these rejections tended to be more severe with a significantly increased incidence of both steroid-resistant and multiple episodes of acute rejection. The acute rejections associated with de novo AECAs did not correlate with C4d deposition at the time of renal biopsy, but did demonstrate an association with the presence of glomerulitis and peritubular capillary inflammation. Significantly more patients with de novo AECAs developed graft dysfunction. Thus, our prospective study suggests the emergence of de novo AECAs is associated with transplant rejection that may lead to allograft dysfunction. Kidney International (2011) 79, 655-662; doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.437; published online 27 October 2010

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