4.6 Article

Differential Effect of Bortezomib on HLA Class I and Class II Antibody

期刊

TRANSPLANTATION
卷 98, 期 6, 页码 660-665

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000132

关键词

Bortezomib; HLA antibody; Renal transplantation; Proteasome inhibition; MHC molecules

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [R01 DK098431]
  2. Charles T. Bauer Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Bortezomib has been used to reduce HLA antibody in patients either before transplantation or as treatment for antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Reports on its efficacy show mixed results. The mechanism of action of this agent is via proteasome inhibition. The primary route of synthesis of HLA class I molecules is dependent on peptide generation by the proteasome, whereas that of class II is not. We observed a differential effect of bortezomib on class I versus class II antibody and hypothesized that this was related to a reduced expression of class I HLA antigens. Methods. The effect of bortezomib on HLA antibody levels was evaluated in 13 patients who were desensitized for incompatible renal transplantation. We calculated the percent difference in HLA antibody level before and after bortezomib treatment and the impact of bortezomib on HLA expression in lymphocytes of healthy control subjects. Results. On average, the level of HLA class I donor-specific antibody (DSA) decreased by 32%, whereas that of class II DSA increased by 29%. In vitro bortezomib treatment of lymphocytes resulted in a mean decrease of 23% in MHC class I expression on B lymphocytes and no change (+1.08%) in MHC class II expression (P=0.0003). The amount of intracellular class I molecules was reduced by a mean of 29% with bortezomib. Conclusion. These data indicate that bortezomib reduces HLA class I antibody more effectively than class II antibody. This difference may be due to the reduced expression of class I molecules resulting from treatment with this proteasome inhibitor.

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