1
|
Varol H, Wagenmakers A, Hoeft K, Callemeyn J, Bodewes R, Bramer W, Stubbs A, Kramann R, Naesens M, Clahsen-Van Groningen MC. Expanding the Scope of Microvascular Inflammation: Unveiling Its Presence Beyond Antibody-Mediated Rejection Into T-Cell Mediated Contexts. Transpl Int 2025; 37:13464. [PMID: 39834692 PMCID: PMC11742949 DOI: 10.3389/ti.2024.13464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2024] [Accepted: 12/13/2024] [Indexed: 01/22/2025]
Abstract
Microvascular inflammation (MVI) in kidney transplant biopsies is mainly associated with antibody-mediated rejection (AMR), sparking debate within the Banff Classification of Renal Allograft Pathology regarding its exclusivity. This study reviewed the literature on MVI in T cell-mediated rejection (TCMR) and analyzed MVI in our transplant population. We searched English publications in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Google Scholar until June 2024, focusing on glomerulitis (g), peritubular capillaritis (ptc), or MVI in kidney transplant biopsies classified as TCMR. Additionally, we examined g, ptc, and MVI in 69 patients with AMR, TCMR, and no rejection. Our search yielded 541 citations, with 10 studies included, covering 810 TCMR and 156 AMR biopsies. The studies showed g, ptc, and MVI were present in TCMR but were less prevalent and severe than in AMR. In our cohort, AMR had significantly higher g, ptc, and MVI scores compared to aTCMR and ATN, however, aTCMR also displayed MVI. These findings confirm that MVI occurs in aTCMR and should not be exclusively linked to AMR. These findings highlight the need to further explore MVI's significance in TCMR and investigate the inflammatory composition. This could refine the Banff Classification, improving Classification accuracy of kidney transplant pathology assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hilal Varol
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Anne Wagenmakers
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Konrad Hoeft
- Division of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jasper Callemeyn
- Division of Nephrology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Roos Bodewes
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Wichor Bramer
- Medical Library, Erasmus MC, Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Andrew Stubbs
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Pathology, Clinical Bioinformatics Unit, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Rafael Kramann
- Division of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Transplantation, Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Maarten Naesens
- Division of Nephrology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
- Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Transplantation, Nephrology and Renal Transplantation Research Group, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Marian C Clahsen-Van Groningen
- Department of Pathology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Erasmus MC Transplant Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Division of Nephrology and Clinical Immunology, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Aachen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Rroji M, Figurek A, Spasovski G. Advancing kidney transplant outcomes: the role of urinary proteomics in graft function monitoring and rejection detection. Expert Rev Proteomics 2024; 21:297-316. [PMID: 39133121 DOI: 10.1080/14789450.2024.2389829] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2024] [Revised: 06/15/2024] [Accepted: 07/30/2024] [Indexed: 08/13/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Kidney transplantation significantly improves the lives of those with end-stage kidney disease, offering best alternative to dialysis. However, transplant success is threatened by the acute and chronic rejection mechanisms due to complex immune responses against the new organ. AREAS COVERED The ongoing research into biomarkers holds promise for revolutionizing the early detection and monitoring of the graft health. Liquid biopsy techniques offer a new avenue, with several diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers showing promise in detecting and monitoring kidney diseases and an early and chronic allograft rejection. EXPERT OPINION Evaluating the protein composition related to kidney transplant results could lead to identifying biomarkers that provide insights into the graft functionality. Non-invasive proteomic biomarkers can drastically enhance clinical outcomes and change the way how kidney transplants are evaluated for patients and physicians if they succeed in this transition. Hence, the advancement in proteomic technologies, leads toward a significant improvement in understanding of the protein markers and molecular mechanisms linked to the outcomes of kidney transplants. However, the road from discovery to the use of such proteins in clinical practice is long, with a need for continuous validation and beyond the singular research team with comprehensive infrastructure and across research groups collaboration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Merita Rroji
- Faculty of Medicine, University Department of Nephrology, University of Medicine Tirana, Tirana, Albania
| | - Andreja Figurek
- Institute of Anatomy, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Goce Spasovski
- Medical Faculty, University Department of Nephrology, University of Skopje, Skopje, Macedonia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Seeking Standardized Definitions for HLA-incompatible Kidney Transplants: A Systematic Review. Transplantation 2023; 107:231-253. [PMID: 35915547 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000004262] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is no standard definition for "HLA incompatible" transplants. For the first time, we systematically assessed how HLA incompatibility was defined in contemporary peer-reviewed publications and its prognostic implication to transplant outcomes. METHODS We combined 2 independent searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 2015 to 2019. Content-expert reviewers screened for original research on outcomes of HLA-incompatible transplants (defined as allele or molecular mismatch and solid-phase or cell-based assays). We ascertained the completeness of reporting on a predefined set of variables assessing HLA incompatibility, therapies, and outcomes. Given significant heterogeneity, we conducted narrative synthesis and assessed risk of bias in studies examining the association between death-censored graft failure and HLA incompatibility. RESULTS Of 6656 screened articles, 163 evaluated transplant outcomes by HLA incompatibility. Most articles reported on cytotoxic/flow T-cell crossmatches (n = 98). Molecular genotypes were reported for selected loci at the allele-group level. Sixteen articles reported on epitope compatibility. Pretransplant donor-specific HLA antibodies were often considered (n = 143); yet there was heterogeneity in sample handling, assay procedure, and incomplete reporting on donor-specific HLA antibodies assignment. Induction (n = 129) and maintenance immunosuppression (n = 140) were frequently mentioned but less so rejection treatment (n = 72) and desensitization (n = 70). Studies assessing death-censored graft failure risk by HLA incompatibility were vulnerable to bias in the participant, predictor, and analysis domains. CONCLUSIONS Optimization of transplant outcomes and personalized care depends on accurate HLA compatibility assessment. Reporting on a standard set of variables will help assess generalizability of research, allow knowledge synthesis, and facilitate international collaboration in clinical trials.
Collapse
|
4
|
Circulating Long Noncoding RNA LNC-EPHA6 Associates with Acute Rejection after Kidney Transplantation. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:ijms21165616. [PMID: 32764470 PMCID: PMC7460577 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21165616] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Revised: 07/21/2020] [Accepted: 08/03/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Acute rejection (AR) of a kidney graft in renal transplant recipients is associated with microvascular injury in graft dysfunction and, ultimately, graft failure. Circulating long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) may be suitable markers for vascular injury in the context of AR. Here, we first investigated the effect of AR after kidney transplantation on local vascular integrity and demonstrated that the capillary density markedly decreased in AR kidney biopsies compared to pre-transplant biopsies. Subsequently, we assessed the circulating levels of four lncRNAs (LNC-RPS24, LNC-EPHA6, MALAT1, and LIPCAR), that were previously demonstrated to associate with vascular injury in a cohort of kidney recipients with a stable kidney transplant function (n = 32) and recipients with AR (n = 15). The latter were followed longitudinally six and 12 months after rejection. We found higher levels of circulating LNC-EPHA6 during rejection, compared with renal recipients with a stable kidney function (p = 0.017), that normalized one year after AR. In addition, LNC-RPS24, LNC-EPHA6, and LIPCAR levels correlated significantly with the vascular injury marker soluble thrombomodulin. We conclude that AR and microvascular injury are associated with higher levels of circulating LNC-EPHA6, which emphasizes the potential role of lncRNAs as biomarker in the context of AR.
Collapse
|