Presence of donor-derived DNA and cells in the urine of sex-mismatched hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: implication for the transrenal hypothesis.

BACKGROUND: The term "transrenal DNA" was coined in 2000 to signify that DNA in urine may come from the passage of plasma DNA through the kidney barrier. Although DNA in the urine has the potential to provide a completely noninvasive source of nucleic acids for molecular diagnosis, its existence remains controversial. METHODS: We obtained blood and urine samples from 22 hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients and used fluorescence in situ hybridization, PCR for short tandem repeats, mass spectrometry, quantitative PCR, and immunofluorescence detection to study donor-derived DNA in the urine. RESULTS: All HSCT recipients exhibited high amounts of donor-derived DNA in buffy coat and plasma samples. Male donor-derived DNA was detected in supernatants of urine samples from all 5 female sex-mismatched HSCT recipients. Surprisingly, the amount of DNA in urine supernatants was not correlated with the plasma value. Moreover, cell-free urine supernatants contained DNA fragments >350 bp that were absent in plasma. Donor-derived polymorphs were detected in urine by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Coincidentally, donor-derived cytokeratin-producing epithelial cells were discovered in urine samples from 3 of 10 sex-mismatched HSCT recipients as long as 14.2 years after transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: This report is the first to demonstrate the presence of donor-derived DNA in the urine of HSCT recipients; however, we show that much of this DNA originates from donor-derived cells, rather than from the transrenal passage of cell-free plasma DNA. Our discovery of donor-derived cytokeratin-producing epithelial cells raises interesting biological and therapeutic implications, e.g., the capacity of marrow stem cells to serve as an extrarenal source for renal tubule regeneration.

Familial extrarenal Wilms tumor.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: This study aimed to illustrate the first report of extrarenal Wilms tumor occurring in a family. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective case note review of 3 siblings, 2 of which presented with extrarenal Wilms tumor. Immunohistochemical analysis for WT1 gene product was performed together with molecular genetic linkage studies. RESULTS: A 3-year-old boy had excision of a right-sided extrarenal retroperitoneal Wilms tumor and nephrectomy followed by chemotherapy. At follow-up of 4 years, the boy was well and thriving. Aged 2 years, his sister developed a left-sided retroperitoneal extrarenal Wilms tumor. She had a tumor excision and nephrectomy followed by chemotherapy. She was well on follow-up more than a year after completion of treatment. Immunohistochemical analysis identified WT1 gene product within the tumor for both cases. Molecular genetic linkage studies showed no linkage between the index cases at FWT1 locus. Although possible linkage was demonstrated at WT1 locus, no mutation was found in the coding sequence and intron/exon boundaries of WT1 gene in index patient 1. A possible linkage between the index cases was also found at FWT2 locus. This could be a chance event because of the close relationship of the 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We could identify extrarenal Wilms tumor in a family for the first time. Immunohistochemical analysis showed WT1 gene products in both cases. Linkage studies for Wilms tumor genes within the family were inconclusive. The possible linkage between the 2 index cases may be a chance event.