PLoS ONE (Jan 2017)

Both absolute and relative quantification of urinary mRNA are useful for non-invasive diagnosis of acute kidney allograft rejection.

  • Jung-Woo Seo,
  • Haena Moon,
  • Se-Yun Kim,
  • Ju-Young Moon,
  • Kyung Hwan Jeong,
  • Yu-Ho Lee,
  • Yang-Gyun Kim,
  • Tae-Won Lee,
  • Chun-Gyoo Ihm,
  • Chan-Duck Kim,
  • Byung Ha Chung,
  • Yeong Hoon Kim,
  • Sang Ho Lee

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180045
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 12, no. 6
p. e0180045

Abstract

Read online

Urinary mRNA analysis with three-gene set (18S rRNA, CD3ε, and IP-10) has been suggested as a non-invasive biomarker of acute rejection (AR) in kidney transplant recipients using quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR). Application of droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), which has been suggested to provide higher sensitivity, accuracy, and absolute quantification without standard curves, could be a useful method for the quantifying low concentration of urinary mRNA. We investigated the urinary expression of these three genes in Korean patients with kidney transplantation and also evaluated the usefulness of ddPCR. 90 urine samples were collected at time of allograft biopsy in kidney recipients (n = 67) and from patients with stable renal function more than 10 years (n = 23). Absolute quantification with both PCR system showed significant higher mRNA levels of CD3ε and IP-10 in AR patients compared with stable transplants (STA), but there was no difference in 18S rRNA expression across the patient groups. To evaluate discrimination between AR and STA, ROC curve analyses of CTOT-4 formula yielded area under the curve values of 0.72 (95% CI 0.60-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.88) for qPCR and ddPCR, respectively. However, 18S normalization of absolute quantification and relative quantification with 18S showed better discrimination of AR from STA than those of the absolute method. Our data indicate that ddPCR system without standard curve would be useful to determine the absolute quantification of urinary mRNA from kidney transplant recipients. However, comparative method also could be useful and convenient in both qPCR and ddPCR analysis.