ArticlePloS one2021
Deep sequencing of DNA from urine of kidney allograft recipients to estimate donor/recipient-specific DNA fractions.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney failure, but transplanted allograft could be affected by viral and bacterial infections and by immune rejection. The standard test for the diagnosis of acute pathologies in kidney transplants is kidney biopsy. However, noninvasive tests would be desirable. Various methods using different techniques have been developed by the transplantation community. But these methods require improvements. We present here a cost-effective method for kidney rejection diagnosis that estimates donor/recipient-specific DNA fraction in recipient urine by sequencing urinary cell DNA. We hypothesized that in the no-pathology stage, the largest tissue types present in recipient urine are donor kidney cells, and in case of rejection, a larger number of recipient immune cells would be observed. Extensive in-silico simulation was used to tune the sequencing parameters: number of variants and depth of coverage. Sequencing of DNA mixture from 2 healthy individuals showed the method is highly predictive (maximum error < 0.04). We then demonstrated the insignificant impact of familial relationship and ethnicity using an in-house and public database. Lastly, we performed deep DNA sequencing of urinary cell pellets from 32 biopsy-matched samples representing two pathology groups: acute rejection (AR, 11 samples) and acute tubular injury (ATI, 12 samples) and 9 samples with no pathology. We found a significant association between the donor/recipient-specific DNA fraction in the two pathology groups compared to no pathology (P = 0.0064 for AR and P = 0.026 for ATI). We conclude that deep DNA sequencing of urinary cells from kidney allograft recipients offers a noninvasive means of diagnosing acute pathologies in the human kidney allograft.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.