4.3 Review

The Most Promising Biomarkers of Allogeneic Kidney Transplant Rejection

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY RESEARCH
Volume 2022, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2022/6572338

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Laboratory Medicine, Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical transplantology is an important field of medicine that is constantly evolving. Kidney transplantation has become standard practice and significantly improves patient outcomes. However, transplant rejection remains a concern. This review explores potential biomarkers for diagnosing and predicting rejection in kidney transplant patients, aiming to find less invasive alternatives to biopsy.
Clinical transplantology is a constantly evolving field of medicine. Kidney transplantation has become standard clinical practice, and it has a significant impact on reducing mortality and improving the quality of life of patients. Allogenic transplantation induces an immune response, which may lead to the rejection of the transplanted organ. The gold standard for evaluating rejection of the transplanted kidney by the recipient's organism is a biopsy of this organ. However, due to the high invasiveness of this procedure, alternative diagnostic methods are being sought. Therefore, the biomarkers may play an essential predictive role in transplant rejection. A review of the most promising biomarkers for early diagnosis and prognosis prediction of allogenic kidney transplant rejection summarizes novel data on neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL), kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1), C-X-C motif chemokine 10 (CXCL-10), cystatin C (CysC), osteopontin (OPN), and clusterin (CLU) and analyses the dynamics of changes of the biomarkers mentioned above in kidney diseases and the mechanism of rejection of the transplanted kidney.

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