4.6 Article

Immunological Monitoring of Renal Transplant Recipients to Predict Acute Allograft Rejection Following the Discontinuation of Tacrolimus

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 3, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002711

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transplant patients would benefit from reduction of immunosuppression providing that graft rejection is prevented. We have evaluated a number of immunological markers in blood of patients in whom tacrolimus was withdrawn after renal transplantation. The alloreactive precursor frequency of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, the frequency of T cell subsets and the functional capacity of CD4+CD25+FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Treg) were analyzed before transplantation and before tacrolimus reduction. In a case-control design, the results were compared between patients with (n = 15) and without (n = 28) acute rejection after tacrolimus withdrawal. Principal Findings: Prior to tacrolimus reduction, the ratio between memory CD8+ T cells and Treg was higher in rejectors compared to non-rejectors. Rejectors also had a higher ratio between memory CD4+ T cells and Treg, and ratios,20 were only observed in non-rejectors. Between the time of transplantation and the start of tacrolimus withdrawal, an increase in naive T cell frequencies and a reciprocal decrease of effector T cell percentages was observed in rejectors. The proportion of Treg within the CD4+ T cells decreased after transplantation, but anti-donor regulatory capacity of Treg remained unaltered in rejectors and non-rejectors. Conclusions: Immunological monitoring revealed an association between acute rejection following the withdrawal of tacrolimus and 1) the ratio of memory T cells and Treg prior to the start of tacrolimus reduction, and 2) changes in the distribution of naive, effector and memory T cells over time. Combination of these two biomarkers allowed highly specific identification of patients in whom immunosuppression could be safely reduced.

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