4.2 Article

Detection of plasma cells, C4d deposits and donor-specific antibodies on sequential graft biopsies of renal transplant recipients with chronic dysfunction

Journal

TRANSPLANT IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 3-4, Pages 110-114

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.trim.2009.11.001

Keywords

Kidney transplantation; Chronic allograft rejection; Anti-HLA antibodies; Complement; C4d deposits; Plasma cells

Funding

  1. Fondation Transplantation (Strasbourg, France)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: In order to look for a relationship between humoral mechanisms of rejection and chronic allograft dysfunction, plasma cells. C4d deposits and donor-specific antibodies (DSA) were simultaneously sought on serial biopsies of kidney allograft recipients. Patients and methods: Ten recipients with chronic dysfunction (G1) and 8 recipients with long-term normal graft function (Q) were included. Biopsies and serums were sampled at early graft dysfunction (T1), between 8 months and 2 years (T2) and after the third year following transplantation (T3). Results: In G1, plasma cells represented 12.3% (T1), 8.2% (T2) and 14.1% (T3) of mononuclear cells. The mean percentage of plasma cells was 11.6% in G1 versus 0.4% in G2 (p<0.05). A progressive rise in C4d deposits was seen in G1, from 25% at T1 to 80% at T3. Donor-specific antibodies were identified in at least one serum sample of 60% of the patients in G1 and 12.5% of the patients in G2 (p = 0.012), whereas donor-specific antibodies were eluted from at least one biopsy of 50% of the patients in G1 and 12.5% of the patients in G2 (p = 0.03). In G1, C4d deposits were significantly associated with plasma cells (p = 0.0012) and anti-HLA Abs in serum samples and/or eluates (p = 0.026). Conclusion: This study shows that plasma cells, DSA and C4d are associated in renal transplants developing chronic rejection. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available