4.6 Article

Whole Exome Sequencing to Find Candidate Variants for the Prediction of Kidney Transplantation Efficacy

Journal

GENES
Volume 14, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes14061251

Keywords

whole-exome sequencing; single nucleotide polymorphisms; kidney transplant; exonic; intronic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated exon loci variants in kidney transplant recipients using high-resolution Next Generation Sequencing. The results identified nine pathogenic variants in rejecting patients and 86 SNPs in successful transplant patients. These variants play important roles in short-term graft survival.
Introduction: Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment strategy for some end-stage renal disease (ESRD); however, graft survival and the success of the transplantation depend on several elements, including the genetics of recipients. In this study, we evaluated exon loci variants based on a high-resolution Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) method. Methods: We evaluated whole-exome sequencing (WES) of transplanted kidney recipients in a prospective study. The study involved a total of 10 patients (5 without a history of rejection and 5 with). About five milliliters of blood were collected for DNA extraction, followed by whole-exome sequencing based on molecular inversion probes (MIPs). Results: Sequencing and variant filtering identified nine pathogenic variants in rejecting patients (low survival). Interestingly, in five patients with successful kidney transplantation, we found 86 SNPs in 63 genes 61 were variants of uncertain significance (VUS), 5 were likely pathogenic, and five were likely benign/benign. The only overlap between rejecting and non-rejecting patients was SNPs rs529922492 in rejecting and rs773542127 in non-rejecting patients' MUC4 gene. Conclusions: Nine variants of rs779232502, rs3831942, rs564955632, rs529922492, rs762675930, rs569593251, rs192347509, rs548514380, and rs72648913 have roles in short graft survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available