Soluble CD30, Acute Rejection, and Graft Survival: Pre- and 6-Month Post-Transplant Determinations-When Is the Best Time to Measure?

Biomarker-Development Proteomics in Kidney Transplantation: An Updated Review

Kidney transplantation (KT) is the optimal therapeutic strategy for patients with end-stage renal disease. The key to post-transplantation management is careful surveillance of allograft function. Kidney injury may occur from several different causes that require different patient management approaches. However, routine clinical monitoring has several limitations and detects alterations only at a later stage of graft damage. Accurate new noninvasive biomarker molecules are clearly needed for continuous monitoring after KT in the hope that early diagnosis of allograft dysfunction will lead to an improvement in the clinical outcome. The advent of “omics sciences”, and in particular of proteomic technologies, has revolutionized medical research. Proteomic technologies allow us to achieve the identification, quantification, and functional characterization of proteins/peptides in biological samples such as urine or blood through supervised or targeted analysis. Many studies have investigated proteomic techniques as potential molecular markers discriminating among or predicting allograft outcomes. Proteomic studies in KT have explored the whole transplant process: donor, organ procurement, preservation, and posttransplant surgery. The current article reviews the most recent findings on proteomic studies in the setting of renal transplantation in order to better understand the effective potential of this new diagnostic approach.

Role of novel biomarkers in kidney transplantation

Clinical application of biomarkers is an integral component of transplant care. Clinicians and scientists alike are in search of better biomarkers than the current serologic (serum creatinine, donor-specific antibodies), urine-derived (urinalysis, urine protein), and histologic ones we now use. The science behind recent biomarker discovery spans across multiple molecular biologic disciplines, including transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics. Innovative methodology and integration of basic and clinical approaches have allowed researchers to unearth molecular phenomena preceding clinical disease. Biomarkers can be classified in several ways. In this review, we have classified them via their origin and outcome: Primarily immunologic, i.e., representative of immune regulation and dysfunction and non-immunologic, pertaining to delayed graft function, cardiovascular events/mortality, infection, malignancy, post-transplant diabetes, graft, and patient survival. Novel biomarker uses to guide the diagnosis and management of transplant-related outcomes is a promising area of research. However, the use of biomarkers to predict outcomes after kidney transplantation is not well studied. In this review, we summarize the recent studies illustrating biomarker use and transplant outcomes.

Noninvasive biomarkers in monitoring kidney allograft health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A key aspect of posttransplant management is to identify and treat graft injury before it becomes irreversible. The gold-standard for detection is histology, but biopsy is uncomfortable for the patient and carries a risk of complications. Detection of changes at a molecular level may preempt histological injury, and thereby identify injury earlier.

RECENT FINDINGS

Indicators of immune system activation, such as candidate chemokines CXCL9 and CXCL10, and by-products of neutrophil activity, have been related to acute rejection and early allograft function. Transcriptomic studies of multiple-gene panels have identified candidate combinations that have proven very promising in risk-stratification and prediction of acute rejection, as well as diagnosis of both T-cell-mediated and antibody-mediated rejection. Serum and urine cell-free DNA is also a promising area of investigation, particularly in antibody-mediated rejection.

SUMMARY

Noninvasive, rapid, and accurate tests for risk-prediction and diagnosis in renal transplant allografts are urgently required. The ideal candidate is one that can be measured in either urine or blood, is cheap, and is both sensitive and specific for the condition of interest. Numerous strategies have been proposed, with varying degrees of clinical and preclinical success. A few that meet the essential criteria have been evaluated; a few have made it as far as clinical testing.

Soluble CD30, the Immune Response, and Acute Rejection in Human Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Soluble CD30 (sCD30) is considered to be a marker for the activated immune system in which T cells can damage the allograft. Some studies reported that post-transplant sCD30 can predict early acute rejection and can thereby be used as a biomarker to detect acute rejection. However, several other studies found no relation between post-transplant sCD30 and acute rejection. This meta-analysis study aims to answer this main question of whether sCD30 can help clinicians to monitor transplant recipients. The electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, ProQuest, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, the gray literature, and the key journals, were searched for observational studies from 1 January 1990 up to 30 April 2018. Eighteen studies, with a total of 1,453 patients, were included in this paper. With regard to the different measurement times, post-transplant sCD30 was separately analyzed and divided into five groups (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4 week, and 1 month post-transplant sCD30). All groups indicated a strong association between sCD30 and the acute rejection. The standardized mean difference (SMD) is 1.22 in 1 week, 0.77 in 2 week, 1.11 in 3 week, 1.27 in 4 week, and 0.71 in 1 month groups. The association between sCD30 and acute rejection was consistent across all the subgroup analyses. We found that post-transplant sCD30 had a strong association with acute kidney rejection. We also found that the deceased donors had more association with the high amount of sCD30 than living donors in patients with acute rejection. Finally, we realized that donor type was an important factor leading to the heterogeneous results in the primary studies.