Prospective study of microchimerism in renal allograft recipients: association between HLA‐DR matching, microchimerism and acute rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of donor-derived hematopoietic cells in blood and various tissues of the organ recipients, termed allogeneic microchimerism, has been considered to play an essential role in establishment of organ acceptance. In this study, we prospectively determined the presence of peripheral blood microchimerism (PBM) in 20 male-to-female renal allograft recipients up to 30 months post-transplantation. Recipients were categorized according to the pattern of microchimerism into microchimeric and nonmicrochimeric groups, and then state of human leukocyte antigens (HLA) Class II (DR/DQ) matching, episodes of acute rejection, age at transplantation, renal function, and history of blood transfusion were compared. DNA was extracted from donor, pre-transplant, and post-transplant (1 wk; 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months) peripheral blood samples. We analyzed PBM using nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification specific for the SRY region of the Y chromosome with a sensitivity up to 1:1 000 000. Microchimerism was detected in 13 (65%) of 20 recipients at various intervals. The highest frequency of microchimerism was at 1 wk (55%). Among microchimeric recipients, none were positive on all post-transplant analyses. Interestingly, nonmicrochimeric cases were negative throughout the study. The three recipients with an episode of acute rejection during the first week after transplantation were all in the nonmicrochimeric group with completely mismatched HLA-DR antigens. HLA-DR incompatibility was significantly lower (t-test, p<0.05) in microchimeric cases (1.0+/-0.58) than in nonmicrochimeric ones (1.9+/-0.38). But regarding HLA-DQ and other clinical parameters mentioned above, significant difference was not observed. We propose that there is an association between HLA-DR matching, microchimerism and acute graft rejection in our recipients. Our study demonstrates that, with routine immunosuppressive protocols, higher compatibility of HLA-DR antigens facilitates microchimerism induction. Then, development of new stronger immunosuppressive protocols (including conditioning) or augmentation of chimeric state (by donor-specific bone marrow infusion), especially in completely mismatched HLA-DR renal allograft recipients, may be useful for graft acceptance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".