MORPHOLOGICAL AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF DIFFERENT VARIANTS OF ACUTE KIDNEY ALLOGRAFT REJECTION
https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2009-2-29-36
Abstract
The aim of this study was morphological characteristics of peculiar properties of acute T-cells- (ATMR) and antibody-mediated kidney allograft rejection (AAMR). Histological slices of kidney allograft biopsies were examined after coloration by routine methods and immunohistochemical proceeding for C4d, CD45R0 T-lymphocytes antigen and CD68 macrophages antigen. We’ve determined that the key features of ATMR are: increasing of T-lymphocytes interstitial infi ltration with the same level of macrophages infi ltration comparing with implantation biopsies, mild mononuclear glomerulitis and capillaritis; tubulitis. Morphological traits of AAMR are neutrophilic and T-lymphocytes glomerulitis, diffuse capillaritis, capillaries dilatation and margination of mononuclear cells with admixture of neutrophils, macrophagal interstitial infi ltration under semiquantitative evaluation, as well as, more pronounced, than in ATMR, T-lymphoctes and macrophages interstitial infi ltration under quantitative evaluation.
About the Authors
A.V Trailin
Zaporozhskaya medical academy of postgraduate education, Ukraina
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
T.N. Nikonenko
Zaporozhskaya medical academy of postgraduate education, Ukraina
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
T.I. Ostapenko
Zaporozhsky interregional transplant center, Ukraina
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
N.N. Polyakov
Zaporozhsky interregional transplant center, Ukraina
Zaporozhskaya medical academy of postgraduate education, Ukraina
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A.S. Nikonenko
Zaporozhsky interregional transplant center, Ukraina
Zaporozhskaya medical academy of postgraduate education, Ukraina
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Böhmig G.A., Wahrmann M., Regele H. et al. Immunoadsorption in severe C4d-positive acute kidney allograft
2. rejection: a randomized controlled trial // Am. J. Transplant. 2007. V. 7. № 1. P. 117–121.
3. Colvin R.B. Antibody-mediated renal allograft rejection: diagnosis and pathogenesis // J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2007.
4. V. 18. № 4. Р. 1046–1056.
5. Cornell L.D., Smith R.N., Colvin R.B. Kidney Transplantation: Mechanisms of Rejection and Acceptance // Annu. Rev. Pathol. Mech. Dis. 2008. V. 3. P. 189–220.
6. Girlanda R., Kleiner D.E., Duan Z. et al. Monocyte Infi ltration and Kidney Allograft Dysfunction During Acute Rejection // Am. J. Transplant. 2008. V. 8. P. 600–607.
7. Feucht H.E., Schneeberger H., Hillebrand G. et al. Capillary deposition of C4d complement fragment and early renal graft loss // Kidney Int. 1993. V. 43. P. 1333–1338.
8. Hadley G. Role of integrin CD103 in promoting destruction of renal allografts by CD8 T cells // Am. J. Transplant.
9. V. 4. P. 1026–1032.
10. Hariharan S., Johnson C.P., Bresnahan B.A. et al. Improved graft survival after renal transplantation in the United States, 1988 to 1996 // N. Engl. J. Med. 2000. V. 342. P. 605–612.
11. Kirk A.D., Mannon R.B., Kleiner D.E. Monocytes, not T-cells, primarily determine the functional signifi cance of a rejection // Abstracts of the World Transplant Congress. Boston. July 22–27. 2006. P. 409.
12. Matheson P.J., Dittmer I.D., Beaumont B.W. et al. The macrophage is the predominant infl ammatory cell in renal
13. allograft intimal arteritis // Transplantat. 2005. V. 79. P. 1658–1662.
14. Mauiyyedi S., Crespo M., Collins B.A. et al. Acute humoral rejection in kidney transplantation: II. Morphology,
15. immunopathology, and pathologic classifi cation // J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2002. V. 13. P. 779–787.
16. Mengel M., Chapman J.R., Cosio F.G. et al. Protocol biopsies in renal transplantation: Insights into patient management and pathogenesis // Am. J. Transplant. 2007. V. 7. P. 512–517.
17. Nickeleit V., Zeiler M., Gudat F. et al. Detection of the Complement Degradation Product C4d in Renal Allografts:
18. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Implications // J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2002. V. 13. P. 242–251.
19. Racusen L.C., Colvin R.B., Solez K. et al. Antibody-mediated rejection criteria- an addition to the Banff-97 classifi
20. cation of renal allograft rejection // Am. J. Transplant. 2003. V. 3. P. 708–714.
21. Racusen L.C., Solez K., Colvin R.B. et al. The Banff-97 working classifi cation of renal allograft pathology // Kidney
22. Int. 1999. V. 55. № 2. P. 713–723.
23. Solez K., Colvin R.B., Racusen L. et al. Banff-05 Meeting Report: Differential Diagnosis of Chronic Allograft Injury and Elimination of Chronic Allograft Nephropathy (‘CAN’) // American Journal of Transplantation. 2007. V. 7. P. 518–526.
24. Srinivas T.R., Kubilis P.S., Croker B.P. Macrophage index predicts short-term renal allograft function and graft
25. survival // Transpl. Int. 2004. V. 17. P. 195–201.
26. Tinckam K.J., Djurdjev O., Magil A.B. Glomerular monocytes predict worse outcomes after acute renal allograft
27. rejection independent of C4d status // Kidney Int. 2005. V. 68. P. 1866–1874.
28. van der Woude F.J., Deckers J.G., Mallat M.J. et al. Tissue antigens in tubulointerstitial and vascular rejection //
29. Kidney Int. Suppl. 1995. V. 52. S11–S13.
30. Veronese F.V., Noronha I.L., Manfro R.C. et al. Pevalence and immunohistochemical fi ndings of subclinical kidney
31. allograft rejection and its association with graft outcome. Clin. Transplant. 2004. V. 18 (4). P. 357–364.
32. Wyburn K.R., Jose M.D., Wu H. et al. The role of macrophages in allograft rejection // Transplantat. 2005. V. 80.
33. P. 1641–1647.
34. Yilmaz S., Gonul I., Sar A. et al. Does interstitial infl ammation have a value in the Banff-97 chronic/sclerosing
35. lesion scoring? In: Abstracts of the World Transplant Congress. Boston. July 22–27, 2006. P. 457–458.
Review
For citations:
Trailin A., Nikonenko T., Ostapenko T., Polyakov N., Nikonenko A. MORPHOLOGICAL AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL MANIFESTATIONS OF DIFFERENT VARIANTS OF ACUTE KIDNEY ALLOGRAFT REJECTION. Russian Journal of Transplantology and Artificial Organs. 2009;11(2):29-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15825/1995-1191-2009-2-29-36
Views:
726
Email this article 