4.3 Article

Cell-free DNA profiling in patients with lupus nephritis

Journal

LUPUS
Volume 29, Issue 13, Pages 1759-1772

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0961203320957717

Keywords

Cell-free DNA; cfDNA; SLE; lupus; nephritis

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Centre [DEC-2012/07/N/NZ6/02954]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Increased level of cell-free DNA (cf-DNA) is associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and might be related to disease activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether cfDNA integrity, size distribution and concentration of different cfDNA fractions is associated with lupus activity and kidney involvement. Methods Blood samples were collected from 43 SLE patients and 50 healthy controls. Nuclear and mitochondrial fractions of cfDNA and intracellular DNA were quantified by real-time qPCR. Sizing and quantification of total cfDNA level was performed on Bioanalyzer. Results We determined four parameters that characterized cfDNA profile: fragmentation index, ratio of intra- to extracellular mtDNA copy number, cfDNA concentration, and presence of 54-149 bp and 209-297 bp fragments. Patients with healthy-like cfDNA profile had higher eGFR (P = 0.009) and more often no indications for kidney biopsy or less advanced lupus nephritis (LN) (P = 0.037). In contrary, SLE patients with distinct cfDNA profile (characterized by increased cfDNA concentration and fragmentation, higher discrepancy between intra- to extracellular mtDNA copy number, and the presence of 54-149 bp and 209-297 bp fragments) had lower eGFR (P = 0.005) and more often advanced LN or history of renal transplantation (P = 0.001). Conclusions We showed that cfDNA profiling may help to distinguish SLE patients with renal involvement and severe disease course from patients with more favorable outcomes. We suggest cfDNA profile a promising SLE biomarker.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available