4.7 Article

Comparative transcriptome analysis of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in renal transplant recipients in everolimus- and tacrolimus-based immunosuppressive therapy

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY
卷 859, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2019.172494

关键词

Everolimus; Tacrolimus; Transcriptome; Renal transplantation; RNASeq

资金

  1. FONDAZIONE CARIVERONA
  2. MINISTERO DELLA SALUTE [GR-2011-02350438]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To better define the biological impact of immunosuppression on peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC), we employed RNASeq analysis to compare the whole transcriptomic profile of a group of renal transplant recipients undergoing maintenance treatment with Everolimus (EVE) with those treated with Tacrolimus (TAC). Then, obtained results were validated by classical biomolecular methodologies. The statistical analysis allowed the identification of four genes discriminating the 2 study groups: Sushi Domain Containing 4 (SUSD4, P = 0.02), T Cell Leukemia/Lymphoma 1A (TCL1A, P = 0.02), adhesion G protein-coupled receptor E3 (ADGRE3, P = 0.01), Immunoglobulin Heavy Constant Gamma 3 (IGHG3, P = 0.03). All of them were significantly down-regulated in patients treated with EVE compared to TAC. The Area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUROC) of the final model based on these 4 genes was 73.1% demonstrating its good discriminative power. RT-PCR and ELISA validated transcriptomic results. Additionally, an in vitro model confirmed that EVE significantly down-regulates (P < 0.001) TCL1A, SUSD4, ADGRE3 and IgHG3 in PBMCs as well as in T cells and monocytes isolated from healthy subjects. Taken together, our data, revealed, for the first time, a new four gene-based transcriptomic fingerprint down-regulated by EVE in PBMCs of renal transplant patients that could improve the available knowledge regarding some of the biological/cellular effects of the mTOR-Is (including their antineoplastic and immune-regulatory properties).

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

4.7
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