Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral injury during donation after brain death may induce systemic damage affecting long-term kidney function posttransplantation. Conventional evaluation of donor organ quality as a triage for transplantation is of limited utility. METHODS: We compared donor kidneys yielding opposing extremes of the continuum of posttransplantation outcomes by several common kidney biopsy evaluation techniques, including Kidney Donor Profile Index and Remuzzi scoring, and analyzed tissue from a minimal sample cohort using label-free quantitation mass spectrometry. Further assessment of the proteomic results was performed by orthogonal quantitative comparisons of selected key proteins by immunoblotting. RESULTS: We show that common evaluation techniques of kidney biopsies were not predictive for posttransplantation outcomes. In contrast, despite the limited cohort size, the proteomic analysis was able to clearly differentiate between kidneys yielding extreme posttransplantation outcome differences. Pathway analysis of the proteomic data suggested that outcome-related variance in protein abundance associated with profibrotic, apoptosis, and antioxidant proteins. Immunoblotting confirmation further supported this observation. CONCLUSIONS: We present preliminary data indicating that there is scope for existing evaluation approaches to be supplemented by the analysis of proteomic differences. Furthermore, the observed outcome-related variance in a limited cohort was supported by immunoblotting and is consistent with mechanisms previously implicated in the development of injury and cytoprotection in kidney transplantation.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/TP.0000000000002358

Type

Journal article

Journal

Transplantation

Publication Date

02/2019

Volume

103

Pages

323 - 328