4.7 Article

Increased levels of circulating MMP3 correlate with severe rejection in face transplantation

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33272-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Assistant Secretary of Defense and Health Affairs, through the Reconstructive Transplant Research (RTR) [W81XWH-16-1-0647]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P30 CA006516]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Face transplantation is a viable treatment option for carefully selected patients with devastating injuries to the face. However, acute rejection episodes occur in more than 80% of recipients in the first postoperative year. Unfortunately, neither a correlation between histological grades of rejection and anti-rejection treatment nor systemic surrogate markers of rejection in face transplantation are established in clinical routine. Therefore, we utilized next generation aptamer-based SOMAscan proteomics platform for non-invasive rejection biomarker discovery. Longitudinal serum samples from face transplant recipients with long-term follow-up were included in this study. From the 1,310 proteins analyzed by SOMAscan, a 5-protein signature (MMP3, ACY1, IL1R2, SERPINA4, CPB2) was able to discriminate severe rejection from both no-rejection and nonsevere rejection samples. Technical validation on ELISA platform showed high correlation with the SOMAscan data for the MMP3 protein (r(s) = 0.99). Additionally, MMP3 levels were significantly increased during severe rejection as compared to no-rejection (p = 0.0009) and nonsevere rejection (p = 0.0173) episodes. Pathway analyses revealed significant activation of the metallopeptidase activity during severe face transplant rejection. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of SOMAscan to identify non-invasive candidate biomarkers of rejection in face transplantation. Further validation in a larger independent patient cohort is needed.

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