4.6 Article

Assessment of Circulating Protein Signatures for Kidney Transplantation in Pediatric Recipients

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00080

关键词

kidney transplantation; serum proteins; transplant injury; acute rejection; protein biomarkers

资金

  1. University of California San Francisco

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identification and use of non-invasive biomarkers for kidney transplantation monitoring is an unmet need. A total of 121 biobanked sera collected from 111 unique kidney transplant (KT) patients (children and adolescent) and 10 age-matched healthy normal controls were used to profile serum proteins using semi-quantitative proteomics. The proteomics data were analyzed to identify panels of serum proteins that were specific to various transplant injuries, which included acute rejection (AR), BK virus nephropathy (BKVN), and chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). Gene expression data from matching peripheral blood mononuclear cells were interrogated to investigate the association between soluble serum proteins and altered gene expression of corresponding genes in different injury phenotypes. Analysis of the proteomics data identified from different patient phenotypes, with criteria of false discovery rate <0.05 and at least twofold changes in either direction, resulted in a list of 10 proteins that distinguished KT injury from no injury. Similar analyses to identify proteins specific to chronic injury, acute injury, and AR after kidney transplantation identified 22, 6, and 10 proteins, respectively. Elastic-Net logistic regression method was applied on the 137 serum proteins to classify different transplant injuries. This algorithm has identified panels of 10 serum proteins specific for AR, BKVN, and CAN with classification rates 93, 93, and 95%, respectively. The identified proteins could prove to be potential surrogate biomarkers for routine monitoring of the injury status of pediatric KT patients.

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