Novel transcriptomic signatures associated with premature kidney allograft failure

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: The power to predict kidney allograft outcomes based on non-invasive assays is limited. Assessment of operational tolerance (OT) patients allows us to identify transcriptomic signatures of true non-responders for construction of predictive models. METHODS: In this observational retrospective study, RNA sequencing of peripheral blood was used in a derivation cohort to identify a protective set of transcripts by comparing 15 OT patients (40% females), from the TOMOGRAM Study (NCT05124444), 14 chronic active antibody-mediated rejection (CABMR) and 23 stable graft function patients ≥15 years (STA). The selected differentially expressed transcripts between OT and CABMR were used in a validation cohort (n = 396) to predict 3-year kidney allograft loss at 3 time-points using RT-qPCR. FINDINGS: Archetypal analysis and classifier performance of RNA sequencing data showed that OT is clearly distinguishable from CABMR, but similar to STA. Based on significant transcripts from the validation cohort in univariable analysis, 2 multivariable Cox models were created. A 3-transcript (ADGRG3, ATG2A, and GNLY) model from POD 7 predicted graft loss with C-statistics (C) 0.727 (95% CI, 0.638-0.820). Another 3-transcript (IGHM, CD5, GNLY) model from M3 predicted graft loss with C 0.786 (95% CI, 0.785-0.865). Combining 3-transcripts models with eGFR at POD 7 and M3 improved C-statistics to 0.860 (95% CI, 0.778-0.944) and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.790-0.944), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Identification of transcripts distinguishing OT from CABMR allowed us to construct models predicting premature graft loss. Identified transcripts reflect mechanisms of injury/repair and alloimmune response when assessed at day 7 or with a loss of protective phenotype when assessed at month 3. FUNDING: Supported by the Ministry of Health of the Czech Republic under grant NV19-06-00031.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.