4.6 Article

Immunephenotype of glomerular and interstitial infiltrating cells in protocol renal allograft biopsies and histological diagnosis

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages 2739-2747

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02013.x

Keywords

renal transplantation; protocol biopsies; immunophenotype of infiltrating cells; B cells; graft survival

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with a protocol renal allograft biopsy simultaneously displaying interstitial fibrosis/tubular atrophy (IF/TA) and subclinical rejection (SCR) have a shortened graft survival than patients with a normal biopsy, or with a biopsy only displaying IF/TA or SCR. The poor outcome of these patients could be related with a more severe inflammation. We evaluate the immunophenotype of infiltrating cells in these diagnostic categories. Nonexhausted paraffin blocks from protocol biopsies done during the first year were stained with anti-CD45, CD3, CD20, CD68 and CD15 monoclonal antibodies. Glomerular and interstitial positive cells were counted. C4d deposition in peritubular capillaries was evaluated. Histological diagnoses were: normal (n = 80), SCR (n = 17), IF/TA (n = 42) and IF/TA + SCR (n = 17). Only interstitial CD20 positive cells were significantly increased in patients displaying IF/TA + SCR; normal (137 +/- 117), SCR (202 +/- 145), IF/TA (208 +/- 151) and IF/TA + SCR (307 +/- 180 cells/mm(2)), p < 0.01. The proportion of biopsies displaying C4d deposition was not different among groups. The upper tertile of CD20 positive interstitial cells was associated with a decreased death-censored graft survival (relative risk: 3.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.23-7.35; p = 0.015). These data suggest that B-cell interstitial infiltrates are associated with histological damage and outcome, but do not distinguish whether these infiltrates were the cause or the consequence of chronic tubulo-interstitial damage.

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