Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author Reply
Book Review
Brief Communication
Case Report
Case Series
Clinical Case Report
Clinicopathological Conference
Commentary
Corrigendum
Editorial
Editorial – World Kidney Day 2016
Editorial Commentary
Erratum
Foreward
Guidelines
Image in Nephrology
Images in Nephrology
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letters to Editor
Literature Review
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Perspective
Research Letter
Retraction Notice
Review
Review Article
Short Review
Special Article
Special Feature
Special Feature - World Kidney Day
Systematic Review
Technical Note
Varia
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Letters to Editor
30 (
1
); 57-58
doi:
10.4103/ijn.IJN_30_19

Pre-transplant Compatibility Tests in Kidney Transplants: Case Report on Significance of Epitope-based Analysis in Donor Selection

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta-The Medicity, Sector-38, Gurugram, Haryana, India
Address for correspondence: Ms. Chhavi Rajvanshi, Department of Transfusion Medicine, Medanta-The Medicity, Sector-38, Gurugram, - 122 001, Haryana, India. E-mail: chhavirajvanshi@gmail.com
Licence

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

Detection of alloantibodies is one of the main objectives of compatibility work-up before transplantation. One of the common strategies employed in India is to perform complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match (CDC) and flow cytometry-based cross-match (FCXM) tests.[1] If either or both of these tests are positive, Luminex-based single antigen bead (SAB) assay is performed to identify specific antibodies. These antibodies are then matched with human-leukocyte antigens (HLA) of prospective donor to determine donor-specific antibody (DSA), called virtual cross-match.[2] Routinely matching is done at antigen level; not at epitope level. Antibodies positive at antigen level can be negative at epitope level and vice versa.[34] Epitopes are configurations of polymorphic amino acid residues that are recognized by B cells, and antibodies reactive with these epitopes lead to rejection and/or premature allograft loss. we report our experience of two cases having history of sensitization, where class II (DPA1) antibody was ruled out as a DSA, only because of epitope analysis. Since this has a clinical implication of deciding the prospective kidney donor, epitope analysis may be used routinely in all SAB test interpretation.

Recipient serum samples were collected for Luminex SAB assay (LIFECODES LSA™ Kit Immucor Transplant Diagnostics, Inc. USA.) to identify the DSA. Luminex software (Match IT antibody) was used for antigen-based analysis (cut-off; BCM ≥1000/positive by machine) and Epitope-based analysis was done with the help of freely available online software 'HLA Matchmaker' (http://www.epitopes.net).

As described in Table 1, we presented two cases where both the patients and prospective donors were females, having history of sensitization. All three tests (CDCXM, FCXM, and SAB) were performed for pre-transplant workup. In the first case, CDC cross-match was negative and FCXM was positive for both T and B cells and in the second case CDC and B cell FCXM were negative; T cell FCXM was positive. DSA was identified in class I and class II in both cases. DSA allele matching at antigen and epitope level was performed. In both cases, epitope analysis revealed that antibody against DP locus was not DSA.

Table 1 HLA typing, pretransplant compatibility testing, and DSA on the basis of epitope matching.
HLA typing CDC FCXM
DSA antigen matching
Epitope matching Result after epitope analysis
T B Class I
Class I
Case 1 Recipient A
02,11
B
13,18
DR
07,11
DQA
ND
DQB
ND
DPA
ND
DPB
ND
-VE +VE +VE Alleles
B*44:03
MFI
1018
Alleles
DRB1*10:01
DPA1*02:01-DPB1* 04:01
MFI
5349
1930
B*44:03 (Epitope 162GLS) DRB1*10:01 (Epitope 13FE)DPB1*04:01 (Epitope 33EA) 1) No DSA in DP locus.2) DSA found in B and DRB1 locus.
Age/Sex Sensitization
47/F Yes
Donor A
02,11
B
13,44
DR
07,10
DQ
AND
DQ
BND
DPA
02,02
DPB
17,26
Age/Sex Relationship
27/F Daughter
Case 2 Recipient A
02,11
B
13,18
DR
07,11
DQ
AND
DQ
BND
DP
AND
DP
BND
-VE +VE -VE Alleles
B*44:02
MFI
1694
Alleles
DPA1*01:03-DPB1 *06:01
MFI3344 B*44:02 (Epitope 82LR + 145R) DPB1*06:01 (Epitope 84DEAV) 1) No DSA in DP locus.2.) DSA found in B locus.
Age/Sex Sensitization
30/F Yes
Donor A
02,02
B
40,44
DR
15,15
DQA
01,01
DQB
06,06
DPA
01,01
DPB
02,04
Age/Sex Relationship
54/F Mother

CDC: Complement-dependent cytotoxicity cross-match; FCXM: Flow cytometry-based cross-match; DSA: Donor-specific antibodies

Both these patients had significant DSA in class I (case I - B*44:03 and case II - B*44:02) and class II (case I-DRB1*10:01; DPA1*02:01- DPB1*04:01 and case II DPA1*01:03-DPB1*06:01). Case 2 underwent desensitization by therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) followed by retesting for median fluorescence intensity MFI. The patient (case 2) underwent successful renal transplant once MFI below 500[5] was achieved. However, what we would like the readers of journal know that if we had considered antigen-based analysis only and if these Class II (case I- DPA1*02:01-DPB1*04:01 and case II; DPA1*01:03-DPB1*06:01) were the only antibodies present in the recipient; it would have led to donor deferral. The epitope-based analysis resolved that DPA1*02:01- DPB1*04:01 in case I and DPA1*01:03-DPB1*06:01 in case II were not DSA and these patients could have undergone successful transplant even without TPE. India is a predominantly live-related transplant setting where only close relatives can be organ donors as per Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA) 2014.[6] To have a willing donor in the family, by itself is difficult and any unnecessary deferral would be catastrophic for the recipient and her/his family. It is in this light, that epitope-based analysis assumes even greater significance.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , , , , . Using real data for a virtual cross-match. Hum Immunol. 2009;70:574-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . Post-transplantation antibody monitoring and HLA antibody epitope identification. Curr Opin Immunol. 2008;20:602-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , . Clinical usefulness of HLA Matchmaker in HLA epitope matching for organ transplantation. Curr Opinion Immunol. 2008;20:594601.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , . Duquesnoy. HLA epitope based matching for transplantation. Transpl Immunol. 2014;31:1-6.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , , , . Successful renal transplantation across HLA barrier: Report from India. Indian J Nephrol. 2017;27:210.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , . Transplantation of human organs and tissues Act-“Simplified”. Indian J Transplant. 2018;12:84-9.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections