Complement C3F allotype synthesized by liver recipient modifies transplantation outcome independently from donor hepatic C3.

Complement component 3 (C3) presents both slow (C3S) and fast (C3F) variants, which can be locally produced and activated by immune system cells. We studied C3 recipient variants in 483 liver transplant patients by RT-PCR-HRM to determine their effect on graft outcome during the first year post-transplantation. Allograft survival was significantly decreased in C3FF recipients (C3SS 95% vs C3FS 91% vs C3FF 83%; P=.01) or C3F allele carriers (C3F absence 95% vs C3F presence 90%, P=.02). C3FF genotype or presence of C3F allele independently increased risk for allograft loss (OR: 2.38, P=.005 and OR: 2.66, P=.02, respectively). C3FF genotype was more frequent among patients whose first infection was of viral etiology (C3SS 13% vs C3FS 18% vs C3FF 32%; P=.04) and independently increased risk for post-transplant viral infections (OR: 3.60, P=.008). On the other hand, C3FF and C3F protected from rejection events (OR: 0.54, P=.03 and OR: 0.63, P=.047, respectively). Differences were not observed in hepatitis C virus recurrence or patient survival. In conclusion, we show that, independently from C3 variants produced by donor liver, C3F variant from recipient diminishes allograft survival, increases susceptibility to viral infections, and protects from rejection after transplantation. C3 genotyping of liver recipients may be useful to stratify risk.

Diagnóstico molecular de enfermedades genéticas: del diagnóstico genético al diagnóstico genómico con la secuenciación masiva / Molecular diagnosis of genetic diseases: from genetic to genomic diagnosis using next generation sequencing

En la actualidad se conocen 8.000 enfermedades genéticas monogénicas. La mayoría de ellas son heterogéneas, por lo que el diagnóstico molecular por técnicas convencionales de secuenciación suele ser largo y costoso debido al gran número de genes implicados. El tiempo estimado para el diagnóstico molecular se encuentra entre 1 y 10 años, y este retraso impide que los pacientes reciban medidas terapéuticas y de rehabilitación específicas, que sus familiares entren en programas preventivos y que reciban asesoramiento genético. La secuenciación masiva está cambiando el modelo de diagnóstico molecular de los afectos, sin embargo, los médicos y profesionales de la salud se enfrentan al dilema de la selección del método más eficiente, con el menor coste sanitario y con la mayor precisión de sus resultados. El objetivo de este trabajo es revisar la tecnología de secuenciación masiva y definir las ventajas y los problemas en su utilización.

Currently 8000 monogenic genetic diseases are known. Most of them are heterogeneous, so their molecular diagnosis by conventional sequencing techniques is labour intensive and time consuming due to the large number of genes involved. The estimated time is between 1 and 10 years for molecular diagnosis and this delay prevents patients from receiving therapy and rehabilitation measures, and their families from entering prevention programs and being given genetic counselling. Next generation sequencing (NGS) is changing the model of molecular diagnosis of patients; however, doctors and health professionals are faced with the dilemma of choosing the most efficient method, with lower health care costs and the most accurate results. The aim of this paper is to review the NGS technology and define the advantages and problems in the use of this technology.

Harmful effect of preformed anti-MICA antibodies on renal allograft evolution in early posttransplantation period.

BACKGROUND: Pretransplantation anti-major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related molecule A (MICA) sensitization is an uncommon event and its role on kidney graft evolution is not completely defined. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients transplanted between 2005 and 2011 in our center (n=727) was performed. Recipients were classified in four groups, according either to multiplexed flow cytometry-recorded anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and anti-MICA antibodies or to percent panel-reactive antibody (PRA; by complement-dependent cytotoxicity) and anti-MICA antibodies. RESULTS: In the total cohort, 52 (7.15%) patients had preformed anti-MICA antibodies, and these were not related with anti-HLA, previous transplantations, or recipient female sex (potential pregnancies). Kaplan-Meier curves showed global allograft survival differences (P=0.042) mostly due to pronounced decrease in PRA+MICA+ group early after transplantation. Biopsy-proven allograft rejection rate increased after month 12 in PRA+MICA- group and was higher early after transplantation in PRA+MICA+ group (P=0.033). In paired comparisons, rejection incidence was superior in PRA+MICA- versus PRA-MICA- patients (17% vs. 7%; P=0.007) at 24 months, confirming the widely reported deleterious effect of PRA+ status, but at 3 months rejection was higher in PRA+MICA+ versus PRA-MICA- patients (14% vs. 2%; P=0.009). Among patients categorized according anti-HLA and anti-MICA antibodies, the most striking difference in rejection was observed at 3 months (8% in HLA-MICA+ vs. 2% in HLA-MICA- patients; P=0.032). In the multivariate analysis, HLA-MICA+ status at 3 months independently conferred the highest risk for rejection (odds ratio, 5.07; P=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Pretransplantation sensitization against MICA and HLA are independent events. Preformed anti-MICA antibodies independently increase risk for kidney rejection and enhance the deleterious effect of PRA+ status early after transplantation.