ArticleHistology and histopathology2025
Does old-to-young kidney transplantation rejuvenate old donor kidneys?
Article in Histology and histopathology, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe number of older organ donors is increasing due to the aging population. Aged kidneys often face problems such as delayed graft function but previous murine experiments suggested the possibilities of rejuvenation, for example, in a parabiosis setting between old and young mice. To investigate kidney-graft rejuvenation, we compared an old-to-young (O-Y) patient transplantation group and a transplantation group with donors/recipients of approx. the same age (SA) with the renal senescence marker p16 in kidney biopsy samples at baseline and one year post-transplantation.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed our hospital's 32 cases of living-donor ABO-compatible transplants performed between 2013-2020. Both the baseline and one-year biopsy (n=9) or only the baseline biopsy (n=32) were analyzed. We divided the nine cases into an O-Y group (donors' median age 68 yrs, recipients 41, difference -27) and an SA group (donors' median age 53 yrs, recipients 51.5, difference -3.5). p16 was stained with the clones JC8 and E6H4 to determine the precise p16-positive rate.
resultsThe 32 baseline biopsies' p16-positive rate was weakly related to donor age, suggesting that the p16-positive rate can help evaluate kidney senescence. The (n=5) O-Y group's p16-positive rates were at baseline 0.08 and one year 0.12; the (n=4) SA group's rate was 0.03 at both baseline and one year.
conclusionsNo kidney rejuvenation was observed, even when old donor kidneys went to young recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39478629What 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.