Allograft and recipient tissue injury during cardiac allograft rejection: Evidence from cell-free DNA
Résumé fourni par la source
Cardiac allograft rejection (AR) is conventionally managed as an allograft disease. However, data from kidney transplant and proinflammatory cytokine studies suggest the occurrence of recipient tissue injury during AR, which remains poorly defined to date and is a recognized risk factor for poor survival. This study hypothesizes that AR is linked to recipient tissue injury, measured as plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), a biomarker of tissue injury. This study analyzed genetic and epigenetic signatures to quantify allograft and recipient cfDNA and the tissue sources for AR and stable controls. To provide a mechanistic connection, the study compared cfDNA damage-associated molecular pattern activity between patients with AR and stable controls. Results indicate that both allograft and recipient cfDNA levels increase during AR compared with stable controls. The increased recipient cfDNA levels primarily originated from immune cells, vascular endothelium, hepatocytes, and kidney epithelial cells and correlated with conventional biomarkers of organ dysfunction. In cell culture models, AR-derived cfDNA demonstrated increased damage-associated molecular pattern activity compared with cfDNA from stable controls. These findings suggest that AR is linked to heightened recipient cfDNA levels and an increased risk of recipient organ dysfunction. Future research is warranted to investigate these findings further to improve the management and outcomes of AR.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Allograft and recipient tissue injury during cardiac allograft rejection: Evidence from cell-free DNA
- Date Crossref
- 01/06/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.