4.1 Article

Immunostaining Patterns of Posttransplant Liver Biopsies Using 2 Anti-C4d Antibodies

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000723

Keywords

C4d; antibody-mediated rejection; acute cellular rejection; chronic rejection; recurrent hepatitis C; liver transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Histopathologic diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection in posttransplant liver biopsies is challenging. The recently proposed diagnostic criteria by the Banff Working Group on Liver Allograft Pathology require positive C4d immunohistochemical staining to establish the diagnosis. However, the reported C4d staining patterns vary widely in different studies. One potential explanation may be due to different antibody preparations used by different investigators. In this study, posttransplant liver biopsies from 69 patients histopathologically diagnosed with acute cellular rejection, chronic rejection, or recurrent hepatitis C were immunohistochemically stained using 2 polyclonal anti-C4d antibodies. On the basis of the distribution of C4d immunoreactivity, 5 different staining patterns were observed: portal vein and capillary, hepatic artery, portal stroma, central vein, and sinusoids. The frequency, extent, and intensity of positive C4d staining with the 2 antibody preparations differed significantly for portal veins/capillaries and central veins, but not for hepatic arteries and portal stroma. Positive sinusoidal staining was seen in only 1 case. There were no significant differences in the frequency, extent, and intensity of positive C4d staining among the acute cellular rejection, chronic rejection, and recurrent hepatitis C groups with the 2 anti-C4d antibodies. These data show that different anti-C4d antibodies can show different staining patterns, which may lead to different interpretation. Caution is thus needed when selecting C4d antibodies for clinical use to aid in the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available