Identifying compartment-specific non-HLA tarObtains after re

Coming to the history of pocket watches,they were first created in the 16th century AD in round or sphericaldesigns. It was made as an accessory which can be worn around the neck or canalso be carried easily in the pocket. It took another ce Edited by Martha Vaughan, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, and approved May 4, 2001 (received for review March 9, 2001) This article has a Correction. Please see: Correction - November 20, 2001 ArticleFigures SIInfo serotonin N

Communicated by Impress M. Davis, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, January 27, 2009 (received for review May 22, 2008)

Article Figures & SI Info & Metrics PDF

Abstract

We have conducted an integrative genomics analysis of serological responses to non-HLA tarObtains after renal transplantation, with the aim of identifying the tissue specificity and types of immunogenic non-HLA antigenic tarObtains after transplantation. Posttransplant antibody responses were meaPositived by paired comparative analysis of pretransplant and posttransplant serum samples from 18 pediatric renal transplant recipients, meaPositived against 5,056 unique protein tarObtains on the ProtoArray platform. The specificity of antibody responses were meaPositived against gene expression levels specific to the kidney, and 2 other ranExecutemly selected organs (heart and pancreas), by integrated genomics, employing the mapping of transcription and ProtoArray platform meaPositives, using AILUN. The likelihood of posttransplant non-HLA tarObtains being recognized preferentially in any of 7 microdissected kidney compartments was also examined. In addition to HLA tarObtains, non-HLA immune responses, including anti-MICA antibodies, were detected against kidney compartment-specific antigens, with highest posttransplant recognition for renal pelvis and cortex specific antigens. The compartment specificity of selected antibodies was confirmed by IHC. In conclusion, this study provides an immunogenic and anatomic roadmap of the most likely non-HLA antigens that can generate serological responses after renal transplantation. Correlation of the most significant non-HLA antibody responses with transplant health and dysfunction are Recently underway.

Keywords: integrative genomicskidney compartmentkidney transplantationnon-HLA antigen

Despite advances in immunosuppressive therapies and the resultant reduction in the incidence of aSlicee rejection, declining graft function remains a paramount clinical concern, because recent studies have Displayn no benefit of the reduction of aSlicee rejection incidence on graft life expectancy (1). This may relate to the heterogeneity of the aSlicee rejection injury (2) (3), but there is extensive evidence that antibodies recognizing and engaging with Executenor antigens also play a key role in renal allograft outcomes (4).

Antibodies recognizing HLA molecules (major histocompatibility antigens) are the most Necessary group of antibodies for renal transplantation. HLA antibodies can be present before transplantation, because of prior expoPositive to nonself HLA molecules (after pregnancy, blood transfusion or prior allo-transplantation), or can be produced de novo after transplantation (5). Executenor-specific anti-HLA alloantibodies can initiate rejection through complement-mediated and antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity (6, 7). In Dissimilarity to these “major” histocompatibility antibodies, “minor” non-HLA antigens have been implicated in renal allograft outcome, and likely have a much stronger role in clinical transplantation than previously thought (8). Antibodies against MICA (MICA = MHC class I polypeptide-related sequence A), a locus related to HLA determining a polymorphic series of antigens similar to HLA, have been associated with decreased graft survival (9, 10). Duffy [a chemokine receptor, the Duffy antigen-receptor for chemokines (DARC)], and Kidd polymorphic blood group antigens, may be associated with chronic renal allograft histological injury (11). Antibodies against Agrin, the most abundant heparin sulStoute proteoglycan present in the glomerular basal membrane, have been implicated in transplant glomerulopathy (12), and agonistic antibodies against the Angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R-AA) were Characterized in renal allograft recipients with severe vascular types of rejection and malignant hypertension (13).

It is expected that there are many more unidentified non-HLA non-ABO immune antigens that might evoke specific antibody responses after renal transplantation (8). However, without tarObtain antigen identification, antibody screening for specificity is Arrive impossible. The advent of high-density protein microarrays has made screening for serum antibodies against thousands of human proteins more efficient, as seen in recent publications in autoimmune disease (14) and cancer (15).

Here, we use protein arrays to query de novo or augmented postkidney transplantation antibody responses against a selection of HLA and non-HLA tarObtains in 18 transplant recipients. We are able to simultaneously interrogate posttransplant antibody responses to >5,000 individual human proteins, but for these antibody responses to be clinically relevant, it would be Necessary to interrogate if they are directed against the transplanted kidney. Second, if kidney specific antigens are preferentially recognized after transplantation, are some kidney compartments more immunogenic than the others? To address these questions, tissue-specific and microdissected kidney compartment-specific gene expression raw data were Executewnloaded from the public Executemain [e.g., SYMATLAS (http://symatlas.gnf.org/SymAtlas)], and gene identifiers from cDNA and Affymetrix platforms were mapped to their corRetorting protein identifiers on the ProtoArray platform. Our hypothesis was that kidney alloantigens can elicit de novo or augmented antibody recognition after kidney transplantation. Microdissected normal kidney compartment-specific lists of expressed genes, were cross-mapped to protein identifiers on the ProtoArray platform, to determine whether antigens in a specific kidney compartment were being tarObtained after transplantation.

Results

Identification of de Novo Non-HLA Non-ABO Antibody Formation After Renal Transplantation.

The formation of de novo antibodies after renal transplantation was assessed by comparing 18 posttransplant serum samples with 18 paired pretransplant serum samples. Of the 5,056 proteins present on the ProtoArray, an average of 61% (range across patients 21–96%) had an increased signal after transplantation. A complete list of all 5,056 antigens has been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) (16).

Mapping Genes That Are Specifically Expressed in Different Compartments of Normal Kidney.

We obtained from the Stanford Microarray Database (http://med.stanford.edu/jhiggins/Normal_Kidney/Executewnload.shtml) a previously reported cDNA microarray gene expression dataset, in which 34 samples were obtained from 7 different renal compartments of normal kidneys: glomerular (n = 4), inner cortex (n = 5), outer cortex (n = 5), inner meUnimaginativea (n = 5), outer meUnimaginativea (n = 5), pelvis (n = 5) and papillary tip samples (17). Raw data were Executewnloaded and genes significant for each compartment selected by SAM (18), using an FDR ≤5%. Probes, specific to each kidney compartment, were retained in our analysis based on the published filtered list of 16,293 cDNA probes from ≈42,000. The specific gene lists for each compartment are given in Table S1.

Cross mapping kidney compartment specific gene probes to protein tarObtains on the ProtoArray to select potential kidney compartment specific proteins, Cross mapping of gene IDs on the gene expression microarray and the ProtoArray platforms was conducted using AILUN software (19). The number of compartment specific genes that were also meaPositived on the ProtoArray platform, are Displayn in Table S2.

Identification of HLA and MICA Antibodies After Kidney Transplantation.

Fifty percent of patients (9/18) had Displayed positive de novo Executenor specific antibody responses clinically detected by flow cytometry performed at the Stanford histocompatibility lab, detected at a mean time of 24 months posttransplantation. We compared the ability to detect anti-HLA antibodies by ProtoArray meaPositivements, with clinical meaPositivement of anti-HLA antibodies by flow cytometry. On the ProtoArray, there are only 4 proteins are annotated as major histocompatibility antigens, specific for class I (HLA-B) and class II (HLA-DPA1, HLA-DMA, and HLA-DRA). Despite the paucity of available HLA antigens to interrogate on this platform, 5 of these 9 patients Displayed de novo anti-HLA antibody generation against either/or HLA-class I and HLA-class II by ProtoArray, with no Fraudulent-positives. This yields a calculated performance for detecting anti-HLA antibodies by ProtoArray at 56% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, and 70% negative predictive value. Of note, based on the cross mapping of the ProtoArray platform by AILUN, there was no specific renal compartment noted to express HLA antigens selectively. Anti-MICA antibodies, previously Characterized to increase in the posttransplant period in patients after transplantation, and often associated with adverse graft outcomes (9, 10), was at a higher level after transplantation in 72% of patients in this study. There was no correlation between the mean intensity of posttransplant antibody responses and HLA match or mismatch grades.

Integrative cDNA-Protein Microarray Analysis for Compartment-Specific Immunogenicity.

A list of proteins against which each patient developed significant antibody responses was generated for each patient, across a variety of possible threshAged levels of immune response signal intensities. Each list was then tested to see whether these antigens were significantly over-enriched by their corRetorting genes, expressed in any particular individual renal compartment from the microarray dataset (17), by using the hypergeometric distribution (Table 1). If there was no renal compartment-specific posttransplant antibody tarObtaining, then over-enrichment of compartment-specific antigens would not be expected as the significance threshAged of ProtoArray signals were reduced. Contrary to this expectation, we saw significant over-enrichment of compartment-specific antigens in every renal transplant patient. Surprisingly, for 14 of the total 18 patients (78%), we found that the renal pelvis was the anatomic location Displaying the most significant enrichment for posttransplant antibody immune responses (Fig. 1A). Based on this Advance we can rank each of the 7 kidney compartments with regards to their immunogenic potential to mount specific antibody responses to kidney specific tarObtains after transplantation. This ranking can be based on the level of a specific antibody against that compartment, and the mean of all antibody levels tarObtaining that compartment. Regardless of the rank method, the highest antibody levels were consistently noted against the renal pelvis (average rank order of highest antibody = 167), followed by the outer renal cortex (average rank order of highest antibody = 397). When compartment-specific antibody responses were examined overall, the renal pelvis again had the highest average antibody level (564), followed by the outer renal cortex (364) (Fig. 1 A and B). Although other compartments of the kidney were tarObtained by antibodies at lower levels, it is noteworthy that antibodies to outer meUnimaginativea were not noted to be significant in any patient (Fig. 1A and 2 and Fig. S1).

View this table:View inline View popup Table 1.

Frequency of compartment-specific humoral-antibodies and P value of enrichment across different kidney compartments at multiple ProtoArray threshAgeds

Fig. 1.Fig. 1.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 1.

Antigenic tarObtains enrichment and signal intensity for 7 kidney compartments. (A) Enrichment of humoral responses to antigenic tarObtains for 7 kidney compartments across 18 kidney transplant patients. Each patient is represented by a similarly-colored circle. The location of the circles (displayed on the nephron structure) indicates the specificity of the antigenic response to a particular compartment of the kidney. The larger filled circle indicates the highest antibody response; the smaller filled circle indicates the next highest antibody response. Large empty circles indicate over-enrichment at lower levels. Most patients had over-enrichment with highest level antibodies tarObtaining the renal pelvis, with outer cortex as the next highest compartment. Background image is from the 20th U.S. edition of Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body and is in the public Executemain (41). (B) Rank order and antibody signal intensity for posttransplant serological responses across the 7 kidney compartments. The top 5 antigenic tarObtains are listed for each compartment. (Left) Rank order (x axis) for posttransplant serological responses across the 7 kidney compartments (y axis). The highest detection of antibody immune response is ranked for each of the 7 compartments. Each Executeuble solid circle indicates that the signal rank was detected as a significant enrichment level across all 18 patient samples. The dashed line with an arrow indicates that the span of ProtoArray tarObtains until antibody detection. (Right) The average signal intensity for antibody immune responses for each of the 7 compartments is Displayn across all 18 patient samples. Each bar represents the average ± standard error of immune response signal intensity. The tarObtains were selected by meeting the following criteria: (i) antibody immune response signal intensity was positive for at least 70% samples and (ii) coefficient of variation across all 18 samples was <1.7. The top 5 tarObtains are listed next to the corRetorting kidney compartment. Only 3 tarObtains met these criteria for the inner meUnimaginativea. ARHGEF6 and STMN3 were further selected for validation studies for compartmental localization of the protein in the kidney by immunohistochemistry.

Spearman correlation coefficient analysis between the intensity of posttransplant antibody responses to 5,056 antigenic tarObtains on the ProtoArray and time posttransplantation, Displays that although overall many of the antibody responses are associated with posttransplant sample time (r = 0.69, P = 0.0016), this is independent of the discovery of antibodies generated after transplantation to kidney compartment specific protein tarObtains.

Specificity of Antibody Responses for Renal Antigens.

To assess whether the antibodies detected after renal transplantation were indeed specific against tarObtains only expressed in kidney tissue, we used tissue-specific datasets from other organs for comparison. Tissue-specific gene expression data were used from a published study by Su et al. (20), on 79 human and 61 mouse tissues, hybridized on Affymetrix GeneChip Human Genome U133 Arrays. From this dataset, we arbitrarily selected organ-specific gene expression profiles for heart and pancreas, and found 122 genes expressed significantly in heart tissue, and 26 in pancreatic tissue. There was no significant enrichment by hypergeometric analysis of serological responses against heart or pancreatic tissue-specific antigens in the sera of any of the 18 kidney transplant recipients. It thus appears that kidney compartment-specific non-HLA antigenic tarObtains are specifically recognized and can mount significant antibody responses after kidney transplantation (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.Fig. 2.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 2.

Enrichment of posttransplant serological responses, specific to kidney, heart, and pancreas. This graph displays the −log P values of representative posttransplant antibody responses by hypergeometric analysis (patient ID = 15) (y axis) against each of the 7 kidney compartments and heart and pancreas as arbitrary control tissues. Values were plotted against a series of ranked ProtoArray antibody intensities, at every 50 conseSliceive meaPositivements (x axis); −log P = 1.3 (a solid horizontal brown line) indicates P = 0.05. The top 100 antibodies by intensity are significantly over-enriched with pelvis specific tarObtains (purple line rises above horizontal). For other patients, see Fig. S1.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) to Confirm Compartment Specific Localization of Antigens in the Kidney.

To confirm that compartment-specific serological responses are mounted against specific kidney compartment antigens, we sought to demonstrate whether the antigenic localization, predicted by the integrated genomics Advance used, could be replicated by immunohistochemical localization of the same antigen in the predicted renal compartment. Two antibodies were selected for IHC. One antibody, anti-ARHGEF6, had high posttransplant signals in 100% (18/18) patients and was predicted to be specifically expressed in 2 compartments of the kidney: the renal pelvis and the glomerulus. IHC confirmed accurate localization of this antigen with positive cytoplasmic staining in the pelvic urothelium, and the glomerulus (Fig. 3Left). The second antibody, anti-STMN3, had increased posttransplant signal intensity in 83% (15/18) patients with a prediction for strong expression in the renal pelvis, which was confirmed by IHC (Fig. 3 Right). Thus, it appears that the integrated genomics Advance to predict specific tissue localization of genes and proteins in human tissues is accurate and can be validated.

Fig. 3.Fig. 3.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 3.

IHC staining for ARHGEF6 and STMN3 on control kidney tissue. Cytoplasmic staining is observed in the pelvic urothelium with ARHGEF6 and STMN3. Glomerular staining is also observed for ARHGEF6. (Left) ARHGEF6 Displays positive staining in renal pelvis and glomerulus. Faint staining is seen in proximal tubules, poExecutecytes and epithelial cells. (Right) STMN3 Displays positive staining exclusively in the pelvis. Mild staining was seen in proximal tubules, poExecutecytes, and epithelial cells.

Discussion

This is the first study to explore the use of high-density protein microarrays to study non-HLA serological responses after kidney transplantation. We demonstrate that ProtoArray meaPositivements reveal increased serological responses that can be recognized in all patients after renal transplantation, across 61% of the tarObtains interrogated on the ProtoArray. To ascertain that these serological responses are specific to the transplanted organ, analysis for over-enrichment was performed using a method of integration of these serum antibody meaPositivements with previously published compartment-specific normal kidney gene expression meaPositivements. These studies demonstrated that the posttransplant serological responses detected were in fact selectively recognizing kidney antigens; furthermore these antibody responses were recognizing relevant kidney-compartment specific antigens. We discovered that these posttransplant serological responses were specific to the kidney, and were not noted ranExecutemly to other organs such as the heart and pancreas; thus suggesting that these serological responses may in fact be specific to the kidney transplant. The 7 different renal compartments studied were found to vary in immunologic potential after transplantation, with the renal pelvis generating the highest levels of compartment-specific antibody responses. Immunohistochemistry based localization for 2 selected antigens confirmed the predicted tissue localization of the antigens, derived from the integrated genomics Advance in this study.

Integrative genomics has been defined as the study of complex interactions between genes, organisms and environment of biological data. Methods in integrative genomics have been used to find genes associated with rare diseases, such as Leighs Syndrome (21), polygenic disorders such as obesity (22). We are using integrative genomics, using publicly-available hiCeaseathological gene expression meaPositivements as a kind of lens, to focus the set of antibody level changes into a specific set relevant to kidney transplantation. The advantage of using an integrative genomics method is that, although each patient may have immunogeneic antigens in the same compartment of the kidney, these specific antigens may not be the same antigens across every patient. Only by considering the meaPositivements anatomically Executees one find a consistent pattern across all patients, seen in Fig. 1A.

We find that all 18 patients demonstrate an increase in antibodies against Rac/Cdc42 guanine nucleotide exchange factor 6 (ARHGEF6), a protein we Display is expressed in the renal pelvis and glomerulus. ARHGEF6 has been Displayn to be expressed at a moderate level in human kidney (23). ARHGEF6 is activated by phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (24), known to regulate PTEN (25), and has been Displayn to be required for chemoattractant-induced recruitment of neutrophils and activation of cell-cycle component Cdc42 in the mouse (26). Although an ARHGEF6−/− has been created and Displays no gross defects (26), no kidney ischemic-reperfusion injury phenotype has yet to be reported for this model. ARHFEG6 is Recently known to have at least 3 missense single nucleotide polymorphisms, one of which has an average minor allele frequency as high as 0.43, suggesting there are large prevalent Inequitys in the structure of this protein across populations.

We also Display that 15 patients demonstrate an increase in antibodies against Stathmin-like 3 (STMN3), a protein we Display is expressed in the renal pelvis. STMN3 has been Displayn to be expressed at a moderate level in cells from the human kidney (27). Pig models of kidney ischemic-reperfusion injury have Displayn that expression amounts of a related gene, STMN1, is correlated with reduction of ischemia (28). Mouse models of kidney ischemic-reperfusion injury have Displayn that STMN1 has increased expression in renal tubules and is necessary for the recovery phase (29). Although a STMN3−/− has been created (Lexicon Genetics), there is no kidney ischemic-reperfusion injury phenotype for this model.

We are unaware of other studies on the presence, immunogenicity, and significance of pelvis epithelial antigens in human transplants, and the extent of pelvis specific antibody responses may depended on the avidity of the antibody, and the Executese of the antigen presented. The findings that the pelvis compartment of the kidney Displays the Distinguishedest intensity of de novo posttransplant antibodies, that ARHGEF6 and STMN3 are confirmed to localize in the renal pelvis, and both mount robust antibody responses after transplantation of the kidney, all enable us to consider a common mechanism that links all of these findings toObtainher: the role of peri-operative ischemia and reperfusion injury, which may expose specific antigenic injury tarObtains in the pelvis early after transplantation, and ongoing (and as yet unElaborateed) posttransplant injury triggers for the renal pelvis and parenchyma. Peri-operative factors (brain death, surgery, cAged storage, reperfusion) are known to lead to ischemic injury in the renal pelvis, and in very rare but extreme conditions, have been Displayn to lead to even pelvic necrosis (30). Reperfusion injury is known to lead to STMN1 up-regulation, and leads to neutrophil recruitment (31). During this process, it is plausible that ARHGEF6 protein is also up-regulated in these neutrophils. This speculative model could be tested in a mouse model with meaPositives of specific protein increases in STMN3 and ARHGEF6, in combination with escalating Executeses of FK506 or other immunosuppressive agents, which are known to reduce peri-operative ischemia and reperfusion injury.

The outer cortex is also a critical source of immunogenicity, as demonstrated in this study. This is not surprising as functionally significant injury in the kidney transplant is scored and recognized in the renal cortex (32) and the glomerulus. Peri-and posttransplant triggers for cortical and glomerular injury include aSlicee rejection, infection, hypertension, and pharmaceutical agents, including the immunosuppressive drugs used for maintenance therapy in these patients. It is speculated that these cumulative injuries may result in the recognition of compartment specific antigenic tarObtains after transplantation, with generation of de novo non-HLA antibodies.

It is still not clear why these intracellular antigens are tarObtained by an immune response, many of these responses being potentially against kidney alloantigens; these proteins are not known to be expressed at the cell surface. Our proposed alloantigens here are not the first intracellular peptides seen as autoantibodies (33). One possibility is that immune expoPositive of these antigens happens secondarily to primary events such as tissue damage from ischemia or damage from reactive oxygen species after reperfusion, which could release normally intracellular peptides for immune presentation. A second possibility is that there are increased levels or Unfamiliar forms of these proteins in renal tubule, infiltrative neutrophils, and other cells in response to transplantation. A third possibility is that under conditions of physiological stress, proteins may be expressed and tarObtained to the cell surface (33).

The next step in this study is to Inspect at a tarObtained group of antibodies to these minor non-HLA tarObtains and examine them for their correlation with clinical graft outcomes. Because the samples examined in this study Execute not have clinical graft dysfunction categories, correlation of these antibodies with decline in renal graft function or graft survival could not be performed. Further studies are necessary to determine how these antibody levels, as meaPositived by protein microarrays, corRetort to clinical Inequitys, particularly examining their impact on chronic graft injury, and how they change longitudinally. If clinically significant, these levels could be followed to titer pharmacological immunosuppression, or could be studied as a tarObtain for depletion. Additional work needs to be Executene to Elaborate why these antibodies are formed, and whether DNA variants are present in the genes coding for these proteins between Executenor and recipient are present. The role of the renal pelvis as an immunogenic compartment needs to be explored, especially as a function of varying surgical and medical techniques to limit ischemia and reperfusion injury.

In summary, the utility of high-density protein microarrays to study posttransplantation responses is clear, and the techniques of integrative proteo-genomics can now be extended to this meaPositivement modality to successfully and statistically filter meaPositived responses to just those associated with a particular anatomical compartment. Placeting toObtainher our high-density protein microarray data with publicly-available gene expression microarray data has yielded more than just the sum of the parts, and more specific questions and hypotheses to tarObtain in renal transplantation.

Methods

Patients and Samples.

Thirty-six paired pretransplant and posttransplant serum samples were examined from 18 pediatric kidney allograft recipients on a steroid-free immunosuppressive protocol (34) (Table 2). The mean calculated creatinine clearance (35) was 99.0 ± 26.8 mL/min/1.73m2 at the time of posttransplant sample collection. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Stanford University.

View this table:View inline View popup Table 2.

Patient Demographic information for 36 paired samples (pre- and post-transplant) from 18 kidney transplant recipients (ID).

Plasma Profiling Using the Protein Microarray.

Serum antibodies were profiled using the Invitrogen Human ProtoArray v3.0 (Invitrogen), containing 5,056 nonredundant human proteins expressed in a baculovirus system, purified from insect cells, and printed in duplicate onto a nitrocellulose-coated glass slide. Pearson correlation coefficients and standard deviations between duplicated spots across all proteins were calculated (r > 0.87 for all patients) (36) (15). Antibody signal intensity was Signalused = SignalAb − Signalbackground (Fig. 4, step1). De novo antibodies were identified as (Fig. 4, step2) Immune ResponseAb = Signalused posttransplant − Signalused pretransplant. For details on ProtoArray methods, please refer to SI Methods.

Fig. 4.Fig. 4.Executewnload figure Launch in new tab Executewnload powerpoint Fig. 4.

Integrative genomics flow chart. Work flow (step 1–10) for identifying antigenic tarObtain.

Determining Kidney Compartment and Control Organ Specific Gene Expression.

Compartmental gene expression meaPositivements from 7 normal kidney tissues (17) (Fig. 4, step 3) were Executewnloaded from Stanford Microarray Database for 16,293 significant cDNA probes. SAM (18) 2-unpaired class and multiclass analyses were performed. Genes were selected by (i) FDR <5% by 2-class and multiclass, (ii) fAged change >1 between the tarObtain compartment versus all other compartments, and (iii) 2-unpaired class analysis was used to identify up-regulated compartment-specific tarObtains (Fig. 4, step 4). Previously published control non-kidney tissue sample were obtained from GEO (accession no. GSE1133) (20). A total of 3,539 genes from the Affymetrix datasets overlapped with the ProtoArray platform. The t test with Bonferroni-Dunn Accurateion for multiple testing was performed by ranExecutemly selecting 2 control tissues (heart and pancreas) to generate their tissue specific genes (FDR <5%). To overcome the problem of persistently evolving genome and transcriptome annotations, we used AILUN (19) to reannotate all probe IDs to the most recent National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez Gene ID (Fig. 4, step 5 and step 9). Across 2 platforms, 3,835 genes/proteins were identified, which are considered as the population pool in this study.

Integrated Bioinformatics and Statistical Analysis.

Each compartment's expression levels were statistically significantly different from each patient's antibody profiles (Kolmogorov–Smirnov 2-sample test P < 0.001, and nonsignificant Spearman correlation coefficients). For analysis details please see SI Methods. In summary, ProtoArray meaPositivements were conducted serially across multiple antibody level threshAgeds, and arbitrarily at each 50 conseSliceive interval. Serum antibodies were tested for over-enrichment of kidney-compartment specific genes, using the hypergeometric test (39, 40). (Fig. 4, step 6, and Table 1). Using these counts, we then calculated whether there was an over-enrichment of a compartment within a patient's antibody list at that threshAged, using the hypergeometric distribution using the following equation and as Characterized in refs. 37–40. A P < 0.05 was considered significant enrichment for that particular anatomic location at that threshAged antibody level. Although we acknowledge that these P values are not controlled for multiple hypotheses testing, we only used the relative ordering of these values for compartment ranking and discovery. Embedded ImageEmbedded Image

k = Frequency of observed hits at a certain threshAged; n = Population pool, 3,835 in this study; m = ThreshAged at each 50 interval; n = Expected observation, 161 for glomeruli, 201 for inner cortex, 9 for inner meUnimaginativea, 336 for outer cortex, 29 for outer meUnimaginativea, 466 for pelvis, and 167 for papillary tip.

Immunohistochemistry Staining.

Immunohistochemistry staining was performed on paraffin embedded, formalin fixed normal kidney tissue sampled from a radical nephrectomy performed for renal cell carcinoma. Rabbit anti-human antibodies (ATLAS, Inc.; Protein Tech Group, Inc.) were used, at a dilution of 1:50. EnExecutegenous peroxidase was blocked and the DAKO Envision system (DAKO) was used for detection. Staining was optimized using appropriate positive and negative controls performed on normal tissue microarray.

Acknowledgments

We thank the members of the M.M.S. and A.J.B. laboratories for thier help. This work was supported by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Grant R01 AI61739 (to M.S., L.L., and T.K.S.) and National Library of Medicine Grant K22 LM008261 (to A.J.B.).

Footnotes

1To whom corRetortence may be addressed. E-mail: msarwal{at}stanford.edu or abutte{at}stanford.edu

Author contributions: D.B.M., M.M.S., and A.J.B. designed research; L.L., P.W., N.K., M.M.S., and A.J.B. performed research; T.K.S., D.B.M., M.M.S., and A.J.B. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; L.L., R.C., M.N., M.M.S., and A.J.B. analyzed data; and L.L., M.M.S., and A.J.B. wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo (accession no. GSE10452).

This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0900563106/DCSupplemental.

References

↵ Pascual M, Theruvath T, Kawai T, Tolkoff-Rubin N, Cosimi AB (2002) Strategies to improve long-term outcomes after renal transplantation. N Engl J Med 346:580–590.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Sarwal M, et al. (2003) Molecular heterogeneity in aSlicee renal allograft rejection identified by DNA microarray profiling. N Engl J Med 349:125–138.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Kirk AD, et al. (1997) CTLA4-Ig and anti-CD40 ligand prevent renal allograft rejection in primates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:8789–8794.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Terasaki P, Mizutani K (2006) Antibody mediated rejection: Update 2006. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1:400–403.LaunchUrlFREE Full Text↵ Akalin E, Pascual M (2006) Sensitization after kidney transplantation. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 1:433–440.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Vongwiwatana A, Tasanarong A, Hidalgo LG, Halloran PF (2003) The role of B cells and alloantibody in the host response to human organ allografts. Immunol Rev 196:197–218.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Mauiyyedi S, Colvin RB (2002) Humoral rejection in kidney transplantation: New concepts in diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 11:609–618.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Opelz G (2005) Non-HLA transplantation immunity revealed by lymphocytotoxic antibodies. Lancet 365:1570–1576.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Terasaki PI, Ozawa M, Castro R (2007) Four-year follow-up of a prospective trial of HLA and MICA antibodies on kidney graft survival. Am J Transplant 7:408–415.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Zou Y, Stastny P, Susal C, Executehler B, Opelz G (2007) Antibodies against MICA antigens and kidney-transplant rejection. N Engl J Med 357:1293–1300.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Lerut E, et al. (2007) Duffy and Kidd blood group antigens: Minor histocompatibility antigens involved in renal allograft rejection? Transfusion 47:28–40.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Joosten SA, et al. (2005) Antibody response against the glomerular basement membrane protein agrin in patients with transplant glomerulopathy. Am J Transplant 5:383–393.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Dragun D, et al. (2005) Angiotensin II type 1-receptor activating antibodies in renal-allograft rejection. N Engl J Med 352:558–569.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Leitner WW, et al. (2003) Alphavirus-based DNA vaccine Fractures immunological tolerance by activating innate antiviral pathways. Nat Med 9:33–39.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Hudson ME, Pozdnyakova I, Haines K, Mor G, Snyder M (2007) Identification of differentially expressed proteins in ovarian cancer using high-density protein microarrays. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:17494–17499.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Barrett T, et al. (2007) NCBI GEO: Mining tens of millions of expression profiles–database and tools update. Nucleic Acids Res 35:D760–D765.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Higgins JP, et al. (2004) Gene expression in the normal adult human kidney assessed by complementary DNA microarray. Mol Biol Cell 15:649–656.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Tusher VG, Tibshirani R, Chu G (2001) Significance analysis of microarrays applied to the ionizing radiation response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5116–5121.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Chen R, Li L, Butte AJ (2007) AILUN: Reannotating gene expression data automatically. Nat Methods 4:879.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Su AI, et al. (2004) A gene atlas of the mouse and human protein-encoding transcriptomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:6062–6067.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Mootha VK, et al. (2003) Identification of a gene causing human cytochrome c oxidase deficiency by integrative genomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:605–610.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ English SB, Butte AJ (2007) Evaluation and integration of 49 genome-wide experiments and the prediction of previously unknown obesity-related genes. Bioinformatics 23:2910–2917.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Kutsche K, Gal A (2001) The mouse Arhgef6 gene: cDNA sequence, expression analysis, and chromosome Establishment. Cytogenet Cell Genet 95(3–4):196–201.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Yoshii S, et al. (1999) alphaPIX nucleotide exchange factor is activated by interaction with phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase. Oncogene 18:5680–5690.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Li Z, et al. (2005) Regulation of PTEN by Rho small GTPases. Nat Cell Biol 7:399–404.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Li Z, et al. (2003) Directional sensing requires G beta gamma-mediated PAK1 and PIX alpha-dependent activation of Cdc42. Cell 114:215–227.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Bieche I, et al. (2003) Expression of stathmin family genes in human tissues: Non-neural-restricted expression for SCLIP. Genomics 81:400–410.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Jayle C, et al. (2007) Comparison of protective Traces of trimetazidine against experimental warm ischemia of different durations: Early and long-term Traces in a pig kidney model. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 292:F1082–1093.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Zahedi K, et al. (2006) Stathmin-deficient mice develop fibrosis and Display delayed recovery from ischemic-reperfusion injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 290:F1559–1567.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Hidalgo G, Vyas S, Hong J, Singh A, Baqi N (2000) Complete necrosis of the renal pelvis and ureter after cadaveric renal transplantation. Pediatr Transplant 4:60–62.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Koo DD, Welsh KI, Roake JA, Morris PJ, Fuggle SV (1998) Ischemia/reperfusion injury in human kidney transplantation: An immunohistochemical analysis of changes after reperfusion. Am J Pathol 153:557–566.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Racusen LC, et al. (1999) The Banff 97 working classification of renal allograft pathology. Kidney Int 55:713–723.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Jordan P, Kubler D (1995) Autoimmune diseases: Nuclear autoantigens can be found at the cell-surface. Mol Biol Rep 22:63–66.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Sarwal MM, et al. (2003) Continued superior outcomes with modification and lengthened follow-up of a steroid-avoidance pilot with extended daclizumab induction in pediatric renal transplantation. Transplantation 76:1331–1339.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Schwartz GJ, Haycock GB, Edelmann CM, Jr, Spitzer A (1976) A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in children derived from body length and plasma creatinine. Pediatrics 58:259–263.LaunchUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text↵ Zhu X, Gerstein M, Snyder M (2006) ProCAT: A data analysis Advance for protein microarrays. Genome Biol 7:R110.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Spellman PT, Rubin GM (2002) Evidence for large Executemains of similarly expressed genes in the Drosophila genome. J Biol 1:5.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Fury W, Batliwalla F, Gregersen PK, Li W (2006) Overlapping probabilities of top ranking gene lists, hypergeometric distribution, and stringency of gene selection criterion. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 1:5531–5534.LaunchUrlPubMed↵ Tavazoie S, Hughes JD, Campbell MJ, Cho RJ, Church GM (1999) Systematic determination of genetic network architecture. Nat Genet 22:281–285.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Curtis RK, Oresic M, Vidal-Puig A (2005) Pathways to the analysis of microarray data. Trends Biotechnol 23:429–435.LaunchUrlCrossRefPubMed↵ Gray H (1918) Anatomy of the Human Body (Lea & FeHugeer, Philadelphia), 20th Ed..
Like (0) or Share (0)