4.6 Article

The regulatory/cytotoxic infiltrating T cells in early renal surveillance biopsies predicts acute rejection and survival

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 27, 期 7, 页码 2958-2965

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr752

关键词

acute rejection; immunophenotype; renal transplantation; surveillance biopsy

资金

  1. Key Projects in National Science and Technology Pillar Program in the Eleventh 5-year Plan Period [2008BAI60B04]
  2. Health Department of Zhejiang Province [WKJ 2007-2-011, 2007B056, Y205238, 2009A056]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of Peoples Republic of China [30801148]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To analyze the immune phenotype of T-lymphocyte infiltrations in surveillance renal biopsies with stable renal function early post-transplantation (median time 40 days, range from 18 to 85 days). One hundred and twenty-five surveillance biopsies with interstitial T-lymphocyte infiltration between non-atrophic tubules in the cortex (14 with subclinical rejection, 32 with borderline change and 79 with only interstitial T-lymphocyte infiltration but no obvious pathological abnormalities according to Banff criteria) were enrolled. All cases were classified into two groups: regulatory phenotype (RP) group, which was dominated by FOXP3-positive T lymphocytes in surveillance biopsies, and cytotoxic phenotype (CP) group, which was dominated by Granzyme B-positive T lymphocytes. The RP group includes 83.2 (104/125) cases, none of which developed acute rejection during nearly 5 years of follow-up. The CP group includes 16.8 (21/125) cases, all of which developed biopsy-proven acute rejection or clinical diagnostic acute rejection within 1 year after biopsy. Glomerular filtration rate and cumulative graft survival time were superior in the RP group than in the CP group (P 0.001). Analyzing the immunophenotype of graft-infiltrating T cells in renal surveillance biopsies during early post-transplantation could predict acute rejection and survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据