1
|
Hjortdal J, Griffin MD, Cadoux M, Armitage WJ, Bylesjo M, Gabhann PM, Murphy CC, Pleyer U, Tole D, Vabres B, Walkinshaw MD, Gourraud P, Karakachoff M, Brouard S, Degauque N. Peripheral blood immune cell profiling of acute corneal transplant rejection. Am J Transplant 2022; 22:2337-2347. [PMID: 35704290 PMCID: PMC9796948 DOI: 10.1111/ajt.17119] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Revised: 05/17/2022] [Accepted: 06/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/25/2023]
Abstract
Acute rejection (AR) of corneal transplants (CT) has a profound effect on subsequent graft survival but detailed immunological studies in human CT recipients are lacking. In this multi-site, cross-sectional study, clinical details and blood samples were collected from adults with clinically diagnosed AR of full-thickness (FT)-CT (n = 35) and posterior lamellar (PL)-CT (n = 21) along with Stable CT recipients (n = 177) and adults with non-transplanted corneal disease (n = 40). For those with AR, additional samples were collected 3 months later. Immune cell analysis was performed by whole-genome microarrays (whole blood) and high-dimensional multi-color flow cytometry (peripheral blood mononuclear cells). For both, no activation signature was identified within the B cell and T cell repertoire at the time of AR diagnosis. Nonetheless, in FT- but not PL-CT recipients, AR was associated with differences in B cell maturity and regulatory CD4+ T cell frequency compared to stable allografts. These data suggest that circulating B cell and T cell subpopulations may provide insights into the regulation of anti-donor immune response in human CT recipients with differing AR risk. Our results suggest that, in contrast to solid organ transplants, genetic or cellular assays of peripheral blood are unlikely to be clinically exploitable for prediction or diagnosis of AR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesper Hjortdal
- Department of OphthalmologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark,Department of Clinical MedicineAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
| | - Matthew D. Griffin
- Regenerative Medicine Institute (REMEDI) at CÚRAM SFI Centre for Research in Medical DevicesSchool of Medicine, National University of Ireland GalwayGalwayIreland
| | - Marion Cadoux
- Nantes Université, INSERM, Center for Research in Transplantation and Translational Immunology, UMR 1064NantesFrance,CHU Nantes, Institut De Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie (ITUN)NantesFrance
| | - W. John Armitage
- Translational Health SciencesUniversity of BristolBristolUK,Tissue and Eye ServicesNHS Blood and TransplantBristolUK
| | - Max Bylesjo
- Fios Genomics Ltd, Nine Edinburgh BioquarterEdinburghUK
| | | | - Conor C. Murphy
- Royal Victoria Eye and Ear HospitalDublinIreland,Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland University of Medicine and Health SciencesDublinIreland
| | - Uwe Pleyer
- Department of OphthalmologyCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany
| | - Derek Tole
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundations TrustBristol Eye HospitalBristolUK
| | - Bertrand Vabres
- Nantes Université, CHU Nantes, Service OphtalmologieNantesFrance
| | - Malcolm D. Walkinshaw
- Wellcome Centre for Cell Biology, School of Biological SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
| | - Pierre‐Antoine Gourraud
- Nantes Université, INSERM, Center for Research in Transplantation and Translational Immunology, UMR 1064NantesFrance,CHU Nantes, Institut De Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie (ITUN)NantesFrance,CHU de Nantes, INSERM, CIC 1413, Pôle Hospitalo‐Universitaire 11: Santé Publique, Clinique des donnéesNantesFrance
| | - Matilde Karakachoff
- CHU de Nantes, INSERM, CIC 1413, Pôle Hospitalo‐Universitaire 11: Santé Publique, Clinique des donnéesNantesFrance
| | - Sophie Brouard
- Nantes Université, INSERM, Center for Research in Transplantation and Translational Immunology, UMR 1064NantesFrance,CHU Nantes, Institut De Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie (ITUN)NantesFrance
| | - Nicolas Degauque
- Nantes Université, INSERM, Center for Research in Transplantation and Translational Immunology, UMR 1064NantesFrance,CHU Nantes, Institut De Transplantation Urologie Néphrologie (ITUN)NantesFrance
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Park S, Guo K, Heilman RL, Poggio ED, Taber DJ, Marsh CL, Kurian SM, Kleiboeker S, Weems J, Holman J, Zhao L, Sinha R, Brietigam S, Rebello C, Abecassis MM, Friedewald JJ. Combining Blood Gene Expression and Cellfree DNA to Diagnose Subclinical Rejection in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 16:1539-1551. [PMID: 34620649 PMCID: PMC8499014 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.05530421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Subclinical acute rejection is associated with poor outcomes in kidney transplant recipients. As an alternative to surveillance biopsies, noninvasive screening has been established with a blood gene expression profile. Donor-derived cellfree DNA (cfDNA) has been used to detect rejection in patients with allograft dysfunction but not tested extensively in stable patients. We hypothesized that we could complement noninvasive diagnostic performance for subclinical rejection by combining a donor-derived cfDNA and a gene expression profile assay. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS We performed a post hoc analysis of simultaneous blood gene expression profile and donor-derived cfDNA assays in 428 samples paired with surveillance biopsies from 208 subjects enrolled in an observational clinical trial (Clinical Trials in Organ Transplantation-08). Assay results were analyzed as binary variables, and then, their continuous scores were combined using logistic regression. The performance of each assay alone and in combination was compared. RESULTS For diagnosing subclinical rejection, the gene expression profile demonstrated a negative predictive value of 82%, a positive predictive value of 47%, a balanced accuracy of 64%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75. The donor-derived cfDNA assay showed similar negative predictive value (84%), positive predictive value (56%), balanced accuracy (68%), and area under the receiver operating curve (0.72). When both assays were negative, negative predictive value increased to 88%. When both assays were positive, positive predictive value increased to 81%. Combining assays using multivariable logistic regression, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.81, significantly higher than the gene expression profile (P<0.001) or donor-derived cfDNA alone (P=0.006). Notably, when cases were separated on the basis of rejection type, the gene expression profile was significantly better at detecting cellular rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.80 versus 0.62; P=0.001), whereas the donor-derived cfDNA was significantly better at detecting antibody-mediated rejection (area under the receiver operating curve, 0.84 versus 0.71; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS A combination of blood-based biomarkers can improve detection and provide less invasive monitoring for subclinical rejection. In this study, the gene expression profile detected more cellular rejection, whereas donor-derived cfDNA detected more antibody-mediated rejection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sookhyeon Park
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois,Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Kexin Guo
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois,Department of Preventive Medicine, Biostatistics Collaboration Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Raymond L. Heilman
- Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Emilio D. Poggio
- Department of Nephrology and Hypertension, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - David J. Taber
- Division of Transplant Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina
| | - Christopher L. Marsh
- Department of Medicine and Surgery, Scripps Clinic and Green Hospital, La Jolla, California
| | - Sunil M. Kurian
- Bio-Repository and Bio-Informatics Core, Scripps Health, La Jolla, California
| | | | - Juston Weems
- Eurofins US Clinical Diagnostics, Lee’s Summit, Missouri
| | - John Holman
- Transplant Genomics, Inc., Mansfield, Massachusetts
| | - Lihui Zhao
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois,Department of Preventive Medicine, Biostatistics Collaboration Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Rohita Sinha
- Eurofins US Clinical Diagnostics, Lee’s Summit, Missouri
| | - Susan Brietigam
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Christabel Rebello
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Michael M. Abecassis
- Department of Surgery, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona,Department of Immunobiology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona
| | - John J. Friedewald
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois,Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bloom RD, Augustine JJ. Beyond the Biopsy: Monitoring Immune Status in Kidney Recipients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 16:1413-1422. [PMID: 34362810 PMCID: PMC8729582 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.14840920] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Improved long-term kidney allograft survival is largely related to better outcomes at 12 months, in association with declining acute rejection rates and more efficacious immunosuppression. Finding the right balance between under- and overimmunosuppression or rejection versus immunosuppression toxicity remains one of transplant's holy grails. In the absence of precise measures of immunosuppression burden, transplant clinicians rely on nonspecific, noninvasive tests and kidney allograft biopsy generally performed for cause. This review appraises recent advances of conventional monitoring strategies and critically examines the plethora of emerging tests utilizing tissue, urine, and blood samples to improve upon the diagnostic precision of allograft surveillance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Roy D Bloom
- Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Joshua J Augustine
- Department of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Donor-derived Cell-free DNA in Solid-organ Transplant Diagnostics: Indications, Limitations, and Future Directions. Transplantation 2021; 105:1203-1211. [PMID: 33534526 DOI: 10.1097/tp.0000000000003651] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The last few years have seen an explosion in clinical research focusing on the use of donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA) in solid-organ transplants (SOT). Although most of the literature published so far focuses on kidney transplants, there are several recent as well as ongoing research studies on heart, lung, pancreas, and liver transplants. Though initially studied as a noninvasive means of identifying subclinical or acute rejection in SOT, it is rapidly becoming clear that instead of being a specific marker for allograft rejection, dd-cfDNA is more appropriately described as a marker of severe injury, although the most common cause of this injury is allograft rejection. Multiple studies in kidney transplants have shown that although sensitivity for the diagnosis of antibody-mediated rejection is excellent, it is less so for T-cell-mediated rejection. It is possible that combining dd-cfDNA with other novel urine- or blood-based biomarkers may increase the sensitivity for the diagnosis of rejection. Irrespective of the cause, though, elevated dd-cfDNA seems to portend adverse allograft prognosis and formation of de novo donor-specific antibody. Although current data do not lend themselves to a clear conclusion, ongoing studies may reveal the utility of serial surveillance for the management of SOT as following levels of dd-cfDNA over time may provide windows of opportunity to intervene early and before irreversible allograft injury. Finally, cost-effectiveness studies will be needed to guide the ideal incorporation of dd-cfDNA into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
|
5
|
Recent Advances on Biomarkers of Early and Late Kidney Graft Dysfunction. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21:ijms21155404. [PMID: 32751357 PMCID: PMC7432796 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21155404] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2020] [Revised: 07/22/2020] [Accepted: 07/27/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
New biomarkers of early and late graft dysfunction are needed in renal transplant to improve management of complications and prolong graft survival. A wide range of potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers, measured in different biological fluids (serum, plasma, urine) and in renal tissues, have been proposed for post-transplant delayed graft function (DGF), acute rejection (AR), and chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD). This review investigates old and new potential biomarkers for each of these clinical domains, seeking to underline their limits and strengths. OMICs technology has allowed identifying many candidate biomarkers, providing diagnostic and prognostic information at very early stages of pathological processes, such as AR. Donor-derived cell-free DNA (ddcfDNA) and extracellular vesicles (EVs) are further promising tools. Although most of these biomarkers still need to be validated in multiple independent cohorts and standardized, they are paving the way for substantial advances, such as the possibility of accurately predicting risk of DGF before graft is implanted, of making a “molecular” diagnosis of subclinical rejection even before histological lesions develop, or of dissecting etiology of CAD. Identification of “immunoquiescent” or even tolerant patients to guide minimization of immunosuppressive therapy is another area of active research. The parallel progress in imaging techniques, bioinformatics, and artificial intelligence (AI) is helping to fully exploit the wealth of information provided by biomarkers, leading to improved disease nosology of old entities such as transplant glomerulopathy. Prospective studies are needed to assess whether introduction of these new sets of biomarkers into clinical practice could actually reduce the need for renal biopsy, integrate traditional tools, and ultimately improve graft survival compared to current management.
Collapse
|