MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394952302 · doi:10.1681/asn.0000000000000350

The Clinical Relevance of the Infiltrating Immune Cell Composition in Kidney Transplant Rejection

2024· editorial· en· W4394952302 on OpenAlexaff
Thibaut Vaulet, Jasper Callemeyn, Baptiste Lamarthée, Asier Antoranz, Tim Debyser, Priyanka Koshy, Dany Anglicheau, Jill Colpaert, Wilfried Gwinner, Philip F. Halloran, Dirk Kuypers, Claire Tinel, Amaryllis H. Van Craenenbroeck, Elisabet Van Loon, Pierre Marquet, Francesca M. Bosisio, Maarten Naesens

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFP7 HealthFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekAgence Nationale de la RechercheBpifrance
KeywordsImmune systemBiologyImmunologyCD8KidneyT cellCell typeBiopsyKidney transplantationCellMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key Points The estimated composition of immune cells in kidney transplants correlates poorly with the primary rejection categories defined by Banff criteria. Spatial cell distribution could be coupled with a detailed cellular composition to assess causal triggers for allorecognition. Intragraft CD8temra cells showed strong and consistent association with graft failure, regardless of the Banff rejection phenotypes. Background The link between the histology of kidney transplant rejection, especially antibody-mediated rejection, T-cell–mediated rejection, and mixed rejection, and the types of infiltrating immune cells is currently not well charted. Cost and technical complexity of single-cell analysis hinder large-scale studies of the relationship between cell infiltrate profiles and histological heterogeneity. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we assessed the composition of nine intragraft immune cell types by using a validated kidney transplant–specific signature matrix for deconvolution of bulk transcriptomics in three different kidney transplant biopsy datasets ( N =403, N =224, N =282). The association and discrimination of the immune cell types with the Banff histology and the association with graft failure were assessed individually and with multivariable models. Unsupervised clustering algorithms were applied on the overall immune cell composition and compared with the Banff phenotypes. Results Banff-defined rejection was related to high presence of CD8 + effector T cells, natural killer cells, monocytes/macrophages, and, to a lesser extent, B cells, whereas CD4 + memory T cells were lower in rejection compared with no rejection. Estimated intragraft effector memory–expressing CD45RA (TEMRA) CD8 + T cells were strongly and consistently associated with graft failure. The large heterogeneity in immune cell composition across rejection types prevented supervised and unsupervised methods to accurately recover the Banff phenotypes solely on the basis of immune cell estimates. The lack of correlation between immune cell composition and Banff-defined rejection types was validated using multiplex immunohistochemistry. Conclusions Although some specific cell types ( FCGR3A + myeloid cells, CD14 + monocytes/macrophages, and NK cells) partly discriminated between rejection phenotypes, the overall estimated immune cell composition of kidney transplants was ill-related to main Banff-defined rejection categories and added to the Banff lesion scoring and evaluation of rejection severity. The estimated intragraft CD8temra cells bore strong and consistent association with graft failure and were independent of Banff-grade rejection.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207