4.5 Article

Lectin complement pathway gene profile of the donor and recipient does not influence graft outcome after kidney transplantation

期刊

MOLECULAR IMMUNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1-2, 页码 1-8

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.molimm.2011.11.009

关键词

Complement; Transplantation; Kidney; MBL; Ficolin; Polymorphism

资金

  1. Foundation: De Drie Lichten in The Netherlands

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In kidney transplantation, complement activation was found to be induced by donor brain death, renal ischemia-reperfusion injury and allograft rejection. There are three known pathways of complement activation: the classical, lectin and the alternative pathway. The lectin complement pathway can be activated upon pattern recognition by mannan binding lectin (MBL) or ficolins (FCN). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the genes encoding the lectin pathway proteins determine their functional activity and serum levels. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of the lectin gene profile of the donor and recipient on post-transplant outcome. A total of 12 functional SNPs in the MBL2, FCN2 and MBL-associated serine proteases 2 (MASP2) genes of 1271 donor-recipient pairs were determined. Lectin genotypic variants were analyzed for association with primary non-function (PNF), delayed graft function (DGF), biopsy proven acute rejection, death-censored graft survival and patient survival. Multivariate analyses found no association of donor and recipient MBL2 and MASP2 genotype with allograft outcome. Analysis of separate functional SNPs and haplotypes in the FCN2 gene of the donor and recipient did not reveal an association with transplant outcome. Also, the joint effect of the MBL2 and FCN2 genotype was not associated with allograft outcome.This study shows that the genetic profile of the lectin pathway of complement activation of the donor and recipient is not associated with allograft outcome after kidney transplantation. (c) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据