4.6 Article

High numbers of differentiated CD28null CD8+ T cells are associated with a lowered risk for late rejection and graft loss after kidney transplantation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228096

关键词

-

资金

  1. Dutch Kidney Foundation [KSPB.10.12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The hypothesis was tested that parameters of an aged T-cell compartment associate with the risk for late rejection after kidney transplantation. Methods Recipients of a kidney transplant in the period 2007-2013 were (N = 365) were included. T cells were characterized prior to transplantation by flow cytometry as naive (CD45RO(-)CCR7(+)), central-memory (CD45RO(+)CCR7(+)), effector-memory (CD45RO(-)CCR7(-)) or terminally differentiated CD8(+) Temra (CD45RO(-)/CCR7(-)/CD28(-)) cells. T cell telomere length and thymic output were assessed prior to transplantation in 202 recipients. Follow-up was until December 2018. The date of the first time of biopsy-proven late rejection (> 6 months after transplantation) was used to calculate the rejection-free survival time. Results Fifty cases of biopsy-proven rejection were recorded. Thymic output and T cell telomere length did not associate with late rejection-free survival. However, the percentage and absolute numbers of CD8(+)Temra and CD28null CD8(+) T cells were significantly lower in patients with late rejection. Specifically, in the highest tertile of percentages of CD28null CD8(+) T cells, the cumulative incidence of late rejection at 5 and 10 years was only 5% and 8% compared to 16% and 20% in the middle to lowest tertile (p = 0.002). Multivariate proportional hazard analysis showed that percentage and absolute number of CD28null CD8(+) T cells remained significantly associated with late rejection and rejection-related graft loss. Conclusion High numbers of differentiated CD28null CD8(+) T cells decrease the risk for late rejection and rejection-related graft loss after kidney transplantation.

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