BioMed Research International

BioMed Research International / 2018 / Article
Special Issue

Renal Transplantation: What Has Changed in Recent Years

View this Special Issue

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2018 |Article ID 9206257 | 15 pages |

Barriers and Advances in Kidney Preservation

Academic Editor: Nicos Kessaris
Received22 Jun 2018
Revised15 Oct 2018
Accepted14 Nov 2018
Published04 Dec 2018


Despite the fact that a significant fraction of kidney graft dysfunctions observed after transplantation is due to ischemia-reperfusion injuries, there is still no clear consensus regarding optimal kidney preservation strategy. This stems directly from the fact that as of yet, the mechanisms underlying ischemia-reperfusion injury are poorly defined, and the role of each preservation parameter is not clearly outlined. In the meantime, as donor demography changes, organ quality is decreasing which directly increases the rate of poor outcome. This situation has an impact on clinical guidelines and impedes their possible harmonization in the transplant community, which has to move towards changing organ preservation paradigms: new concepts must emerge and the definition of a new range of adapted preservation method is of paramount importance. This review presents existing barriers in transplantation (e.g., temperature adjustment and adequate protocol, interest for oxygen addition during preservation, and clear procedure for organ perfusion during machine preservation), discusses the development of novel strategies to overcome them, and exposes the importance of identifying reliable biomarkers to monitor graft quality and predict short and long-term outcomes. Finally, perspectives in therapeutic strategies will also be presented, such as those based on stem cells and their derivatives and innovative models on which they would need to be properly tested.

1. Introduction

Kidney transplantation remains the treatment of choice for many patients with end stage renal disease and is a superior long-term therapy compared to dialysis in terms of quality of life and life expectancy. During the transplantation process and particularly the preservation step, a certain degree of ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) inevitably occurs in the immediate posttransplant setting. Ischemia-reperfusion (IR) process plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of both delayed graft function (DGF) in allografts and hemodynamic mediated acute kidney injury (AKI) of native kidneys. [1]. This clinical problem is exacerbated by the current situation, which is characterized by a shortage of organs driving to the use of marginal donors. Indeed, despite the extracorporeal cold preservation protocol used worldwide to overcome this issue, graft injuries related to IR are frequently observed and caused by pathophysiological mechanisms directly related to nonoptimal preservation strategies.

The main issue is that there is no clear consensus regarding optimal conservation solution composition, oxygenation, hypo- or normothermic conservation, and perfusion method [2], stemming directly from the fact that as of yet, the mechanisms underlying IRI are not entirely defined and the role of each of these parameter not clearly outlined. In the meantime, as donor demography changes, organ quality is decreasing which directly increases the rate of poor outcome. This situation has an impact on clinical guidelines and protocols and impedes their possible harmonization in the transplant community, which has to move towards changing organ preservation paradigms: new concepts must emerge and the definition of a new range of adapted preservation method is of paramount importance.

This review presents existing barriers in transplantation (e.g., temperature adjustment and adequate protocol, interest for oxygen addition during preservation, and clear procedure for organ perfusion during machine preservation), discusses the development of novel strategies to overcome them, and exposes the importance of identifying reliable biomarkers to monitor graft quality and anticipate short and long-term outcomes. Finally, perspectives in therapeutic strategies will also be presented, such as those based on stem cells and their derivatives and innovative models on which they would need to be properly tested.

2. Kidney Preservation: Where Are We Starting from?

Organ preservation contributes to the induction of injuries induced by decreased ATP production, acidosis, cellular edema, and mitochondria alterations [3, 4]. The choice of preservation solutions is thus critical. Experimental models showed that (i) the ionic composition needs to be close the plasma’s potassium (K+) concentration (≈5mM) and sodium concentration (Na+) (≈140 mM), in order to limit hyperpotassic effects (membrane depolarization, vasoconstriction, and consequently low perfusion) [5], and that (ii) the presence of molecules exerting an osmotic and/or oncotic pressure to prevent edema is essential to optimize graft quality [6]. Many solutions of different compositions are commercialized, such as University of Wisconsin solution (UW), Custodiol (HTK), Celsior, and fourth generation solutions such as Solution de Conservation des Organes et des Tissus (SCOT-15) and Institut Georges Lopez-1 (IGL-1), all with various colloids and ionic composition. A strong corpus of experimental results in preclinical models is available for SCOT-15 and IGL-1. These solutions include polyethylene glycols as colloids, a suitable option to protect organ integrity/functionality [59], and their characteristics are presented in Table 1 (adapted from Bon D et al. [1]).

SolutionsK+Na+BufferpHImpermeantAdenosineAnti-oxidantColloid (g/L)

Flush and Static cold storage

Blood4.25139HCO3-7.4+0+Albumine (50 g/L)

HTK (Custodiol®)1015Histidine7.2+5--

(Bridge to life®)
7.4+5GlutathionHES (50 g/L)


IGL-1®30125(K)H2PO47.3+5Glutathion AllopurinolPEG 35kDa


Acid ascorbic
PEG 35kDa

SCOT 15®5118HCO3-7.4+0-PEG 20 kDa

Flush solutions

Carolina RS®5115(K)H2PO46,5+1Glutathion AllopurinolHES (50 g/L)

Dynamic preservation solution (for hypothermic perfusion machine)

7.4+5GlutathionHES (50 g/L)

7.4+5GlutathionHES (50 g/L)

7.4+5GlutathionHES (50 g/L)

Kidney hypothermic perfusion machines

MachineSolution typePulsatile perfusionTemperatureOxygen supply (100)



Kidney Assist-Transport®KPS-1®

HTK (Custodiol®, Dr Franz Köhler Chemie GMBH, Alsbach-Hähnlein, Germany); UW (University of Wisconsin, Alumni Research Foundation, Madison, WI, USA); Celsior® (Genzyme Corporation, Cambridge, MA, USA); IGL-1® (Institut Georges Lopez, Civrieux d’Azergues, France); Lifor™ (Lifeblood Medical, Freehold, NJ, USA); Polysol® (Doorzand Medical Innovations B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands); SCOT15® (MacoPharma, Tourcoing, France); Carolina RS® (Carolina Rinse Solution, University of North Carolina, Chapel, USA); KPS-1® (Organ Recovery Sytems, Chicago, USA and Brussels, Belgium); MPS® (Belzer MPS® UW Machine Perfusion Solution, Bridge to life; Columbia, USA); PERF-GEN® (Institut Georges Lopez, Civrieux d’Azergues, France); LifePort® (Organ Recovery Sytems, Chicago, USA and Brussels, Belgium); WAVES® (Institut Georges Lopez, Civrieux d’Azergues, France); Kidney Assist-Transport® (Organ Assist B.V, Groningen, The Netherlands); HEPES (4-(2-hydroxyethyl)-1-piperazineethanesulfonic acid); HES (hydroxyethyl starch); PEG (Polyethyleneglycol).

Ten years ago, a multicenter analysis of kidney preservation drew several conclusions: (1) kidneys from deceased donors should ideally be transplanted within 18 hours; (2) within the 18-hour window, the time of ischemia has no significant influence on graft survival and (3) UW solution should be used if longer preservation is envisioned [10]. HLA matching improves graft survival regardless of length of ischemia [10]. This meta-analysis included 5 different conservation solutions and 91,674 patients, mostly brain dead donors. Unfortunately, these observations are not adapted to the current donor demographics which includes a growing number of suboptimal donors, such as Extended Criteria Donors (ECD) and Donation after Circulatory Death donors (DCD). Indeed more recently, a clinical study studying brain death donors (including ECD, 3939 patients) showed that each additional hour of cold ischemia time beyond 6 h significantly increased the risk of graft failure and mortality [11]. In addition, keeping the cold ischemia time as short as possible has also been shown to be crucial during machine perfusion [12]. However, the true impact of ischemia time is still debated with diverging conclusions, especially for donors displaying AKI [13, 14]. A need for wisely triaged donors is absolutely mandatory.

Organs from DCD donors or ECD are more susceptible to preservation injury and have a higher risk of unfavorable outcomes, and there is thus growing need for new potential and standardized protocols for organ preservation. Concepts such as machine perfusion (MP), temperature, and other technical advances need to be assessed through rigorous common networks and research programs, with a complete characterization and rationalization of solution composition, preservation temperature, the exact role of oxygen, and the most adapted perfusion protocol.

3. Adding Oxygen during Preservation: Is It Time to Take a Breath?

One of the hallmarks of current organ preservation methods is hypoxia/anoxia. Indeed, unpublished data from our laboratory show that the oxygen dissolved in the preservation solution is consumed within the first two hours of kidney preservation.

In the absence of oxygen, mitochondria are able to maintain some protonic gradient and produce ATP as long as supplies last, accumulating succinate [15]. However, when oxygen is reintroduced in the system at the reperfusion stage, it is captation of a single electron which produces superoxide anion, the first reactive oxygen species (ROS), and source of oxidative stress. If not controlled, the production of ROS and subsequent destruction of structures is fatal to the cell. ROS production is also mainly responsible for the destruction of the glycocalyx at the cell surface and consequence lesions, among which coagulation and sterile inflammation [16].

Oxygen thus appears to be a two-edged sword which should be wielded carefully. However, experimental evidence tends to show a majorly beneficial use of oxygenation. In the current context of unavoidable donor pools expansion, oxygen supplementation during hypothermic preservation is the focus of numerous preclinical and clinical studies, including nonheart-beating, heart-beating, and higher-risk donors [1719]. Naturally called for, the use of oxygen in normothermic preservation is considered elsewhere [2, 18, 20].

Several methods have been used in animal models to provide oxygen during storage: oxygenated perfusate or perflurocarbon emulsion, hyperbaric oxygenation by the delivery of oxygen under increased atmospheric pressure, or retrograde persufflation of gaseous oxygen bubbled through the renal vasculature [21]. Several studies have investigated hyperbaric chambers as a mean to oxygen delivery and demonstrated that perfusion was necessary to improve function, rather than static storage, hinting towards the need for active delivery within the organ rather than changing the outside conditions [22, 23]. In a pig kidney model, retrograde oxygenation also showed beneficial compared to static storage [24]. However, both techniques of hyperbaric preservation or retrograde persufflations are difficult to envision within a clinical setting. Therefore, efforts have been deployed to use perfusion in order to deliver oxygen. Interestingly, oxygenation pressure was again shown to alter outcome, with the benefits being lost at higher pressure (60/40mmHg) [25, 26]. These studies however did not compare oxygenated perfusion to standard perfusion.

In canine, comparison of standard machine perfusion with the Lifeport to oxygenated perfusion on the RM3 did not demonstrate a difference in outcome, albeit with a short follow up and with light IR lesions (45 min warm ischemia) [27]. This study is an example of the animal models limits: study animals are healthy, and machine perfusion is already a good preservation method; therefore measuring the impact of optimization may be difficult without a necessary increase in the level of IR lesion (either through lengthened warm ischemia or marginal donor modeling). Superiority of oxygen addition was also demonstrated when using an oxygen emulsion in machine perfusion, also in terms of function recovery in canine [28].

Addition of oxygen to the perfusion circuit was tested. Our own group studied the use of oxygen in a machine intentionally designed to deliver it: the Kidney Assist. In a pig model of deceased after circulatory death donor (60 min warm ischemia), we demonstrated that oxygenation improved early function recovery as well as long-term outcome (in terms of function and fibrosis development) [19]. When compared to historical data using either the Lifeport or the RM3 in a similar model, we showed that oxygenation indeed permitted better early recovery, but long-term outcome was within comparable range (Unpublished data).

It thus appears clear that oxygenation is a very promising avenue of optimization for organ preservation, particularly if coupled with machine perfusion. Numerous mechanisms are involved in the benefits of active oxygenation at 4-8°C, mostly the ability to produce some ATP and maintain cellular and repair processes [29]. However, in both static and dynamic hypothermic preservation protocols, actual levels of oxygen within the kidney remain largely undetermined, as well as oxygen consumption. Unpublished data from our laboratory assessed oxygen and ATP in static and machine-preserved kidneys (20 hours; n = 5 per group) using our established preclinical porcine model of severe warm ischemic injury (WI, 1 h), mimicking donation after circulatory death. WI reduced tissue ATP by 90% (control: 2.6 ± 0.5 mM). In both preservation protocols, PO2 decreased rapidly (t1/2~1h) from atmospheric levels to 51.8 ± 0.2 mmHg and 7.6 ± 0.2 mmHg, respectively. During machine perfusion, arterio-venous (av) oxygen consumption was calculated (QO2, μmol/min per kidney) and was 3.5 ± 0.1 versus 1.6 ± 0.6 μmol/min per kidney in static preservation. Post-preservation, tissue ATP amounted to 5.4 ± 0.6 and 0.1 ± 0.01 mmol/L in machine and static, respectively. Despite profuse assertions and hypotheses in the field, this is the first comparison and quantification of renal oxygen levels, oxygen consumption and associated ATP levels in standard, non-oxygenated static and machine preservation. This type of study of effective renal graft oxygen levels (and consumption) should translate into a better understanding of the graft’s requirements and open the way to improvements of organ preservation devices and conditions.

4. Preservation Temperature: Should We Really Keep It Cool?

The drive to use hypothermia for organ preservation naturally stems from fact that, on a biochemical point of view, lowering temperature slows cells metabolism, through two relations:

(i) The van’t Hoff equation: At 4°C, average temperature of hypothermic organ storage in transplantation, a chemical reaction will only be 40% as effective as the same reaction taking place at 37°C.

(ii) The Arrhenius relation, quantifying the impact of temperature on the speed of a chemical reaction, highlighting that a reaction taking place at 4°C is 90% slower than the same reaction at 37°C.

However, as organs are not test tubes in which run single chemical reactions, but complex structures deploying a plethora of reaction and interactions, the validity of hypothermia may be put into question. Indeed, molecular structures, such as hydrogen and hydrophobic bonds, are deeply affected by hypothermia. Thus, both proteins and lipids structure and therefore function are altered when lowering temperature. For instance, it been demonstrated that the ability of transcription factors to bind DNA is affected by temperature [30].

In this context, hypothermia conservation is being questioned by the scientific community, and numerous articles highlighted that hypothermia indeed worsens ischemic injuries through; (i) reduction of ATP synthesis and metabolic activity [31], (ii) reduced Na-K-ATPase activity, which induces osmotic perturbation [32], (iii) mitochondrial perturbations, (iv) decreased cell survival [33] and (v) endothelial activation [34, 35]. Optimization of organ preservation temperature is thus a pivotal goal [36].

Among emerging concepts of alternative storage temperatures, recent studies advocate the use of normothermia (35-38°C), subnormothermia (25-34°C) [3638] or mild-hypothermia (12-24°C). The use of normothermia may be considered for the whole preservation or combined with periods of hypothermia [36] and aims to restore normal cellular processes while facilitating viability assessment or to prepare organs to reperfusion. Data from our laboratory focusing on endothelial cells submitted to different temperatures in vitro during hypoxia show that subnormothermic temperatures provided protection against injuries versus 4°C, by reducing cell death, mitochondrial dysfunction, leukocyte adhesion and inflammation. However, ex vivo pig kidney evaluation on a perfusion apparatus showed that the benefits of 19°C or 32°C were limited, with similar levels of tissue preservation damages (submitted manuscript). This study suggests that temperature optimization for kidney preservation will require thorough investigation, combining the use of complementary relevant models and the design of elaborated preservation solution and new technologies.

Additional data from our laboratory studying the impact of temperature on the cytoskeleton showed using in vitro model of renal endothelial cells submitted to cold ischemia (4°C) that, while intermediary filaments were unaffected, cells microfilaments showed radical changes with disappearance of the structure replaced by a disorganized array of nodules; moreover, microtubules almost completely disappeared with time [39]. Furthermore, temperature, and not oxygen deprivation or the solution, was the determining factor of the cytoskeleton’s loss of integrity during preservation.

Obviously, the specifications for normothermic preservation may require an oxygenated perfusate with an oxygen carrier or blood itself and use of MP. In addition, perfusate for normothermic perfusion will mandate elaborate compositions including nutrients, anti-oxidant and metabolic substrates. Subnormothermic dynamic preservation aims to avoid cold-induced injury without increasing metabolism to a level at which intense oxygenation requires an oxygen carrier. These elements will be further discussed below since most of subnormothermia or nomothermia protocols are performed on dynamic preservation.

5. Kidney Perfusion: Pump It up!

Preservation time with cold storage (CS) is limited as prolonged CS increases the risk of delayed graft function (DGF) that contributes to chronic complications. Furthermore, the growing demand for the use of marginal donor organs requires methods for organ assessment and repair. Machine perfusion has resurfaced and dominates current research on organ preservation. Since 2009, compared to cold storage, MP benefits are demonstrated in terms of reduced risk of DGF, risk of graft failure, and improved graft survival [37, 38]. However, the donor populations in which MP should be applied have not yet been resolved but it seems that there is no reason to limit MP to marginal kidneys. Indeed, extracted from UNOS database from 2005 to 2011, a review showed that, similarly to marginal kidneys, MP is beneficial in reducing DGF even when standard donors are considered [40]. Our laboratory identified the benefits of kidney MP as being mediated by endothelium releases of the vasodilator nitric oxide (NO), due to shear stress activating the endothelial NO synthase (eNOS) by phosphorylation, resulting in improvement of cortical microcirculation (measured by laser Doppler) [41].

Another non negligible advantage of using MP during conservation is the possibility to assess organ quality. Organ resistance during MP has been described as predictive value for graft survival (initial resistance) and DGF (resistance measured after 2 hours of MP) [42], although this is still debated. A more valuable approach is offered by the machine giving access to the organ perfusate throughout the preservation period, allowing the measurement of biomarkers predictive of transplantation outcome. Indeed, an international study showed that GST, NAG and H-FABP were independent predictors of DGF but not of primary nonfunction and graft survival [43]. In addition, rapid metabolomic analysis in the perfusate by nuclear magnetic resonance showed, in a preclinical model, that the levels of several metabolites during MP are associated with function recovery [44].

Regarding temperature, MP is optimal to test alternative temperatures such as normothermia or subnormothermia. Hypothermic dynamic preservation aims to slow down cellular metabolism and counteract undesirable and detrimental effects of ischemia. It combines low temperature (4–10°C) with an acellular colloid-containing preservation solution using, in the majority of cases, the Na-gluconate/hydroxyethyl starch MP solution developed by Belzer et al. [45]. Subnormothermic machine perfusion at temperatures of 20 – 25°C potentially allows elimination of cold-induced injury without increasing metabolism too high, since normothermic preservation mandates an oxygenated perfusate with an oxygen carrier (usually red blood cells) [18] complicating the process. A pilot study demonstrated the superiority of Lifor Preservation Medium (a complex organ preservation medium containing sugars, amino acids, buffers, colloids, fatty acids, antioxidants, vitamins, dextran and an oxygen carrier) at room temperature perfusion compared to Belzer machine perfusion both at room temperature and 4°C, in a porcine model of uncontrolled donation after circulatory death [46]. In an acellular normothermic perfusion system, the use of Oxygent (a complex fluid supplemented with an oxygen carrying perfluorocarbon emulsion) was able to preserve canine kidney autografts using pulsatile preservation at 32°C and static storage at 25°C [28]. Such data underline the evidence for a technological evolution of cold storage concepts.

A published economic evaluation, using a Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, showed that life-years and quality-adjusted life-year can be gained while reducing costs at the same time, when kidneys are preserved by MP instead of CS [47]. However, several questions regarding the optimal machine perfusion system still remain unanswered. Future research needs to explore optimal perfusion modalities such as oxygen used and concentration, pressure, pulsatility, temperature. In addition, optimal perfusion solution (enriched perfusion medium, whole blood leucocyte-free blood etc.) need to be carefully investigated (machine vs. solution effects) [48]. Finally, the question of timing is of utmost importance [37]; at present it is unknown whether brief hypo- sub- or normothermic MP following CS is sufficient to renal reconditioning or if CS should be completely replaced by MP.

6. Donor - Organ – Recipient Conditioning

Machine Perfusion associated or not wit extracorporeal circulation procedures could also be used as a tool to condition the donor before organ procurement. Abdominal regional in-situ perfusion (ARP) has been applied clinically at hypothermic and normothermic temperatures in organ donors. These methods have been found to improve kidney graft function, to replenish ATP and to reduce injury in a number of large animal models [38]. The first alternative is called In Situ Cooling and consists in performing organ cooling by using diluted blood solution previously cooled at 0 to 20°C. The second option called NRP for Normothermic Regional Perfusion, consists in using the donor blood to perfuse the abdominal organs before collection. NRP is the preferred form of donor management in uncontrolled / unexpected donation such as DCD donors [49, 50], compared to in situ cold perfusion and total body cooling [51]. Reports from different groups in Europe, the USA, and Asia have described the use of NRP in both uncontrolled DCD and controlled DCD kidney transplantation, with rates of delayed graft function approximating 50% and 30–40%, respectively; negligible (if any) primary no function; and excellent one-year graft survival [25, 5255].

Perfusion could also be used to condition the organ itself, such as at the end of a static preservation phase, in order to “wake up” the organ before its transplantation. Several reports reported that abrupt change in temperature from hypothermic preservation to normothermic reperfusion at the time of transplantation produces detrimental effects on renal graft quality [18, 37]. Recently, Controlled Oxygenated Rewarming (COR) of grafts immediately before transplantation has been described as a modification of MP, bringing a new approach for organ conditioning and strengthening the concept of a pretransplantation organ preservation and evaluation unit. COR following CS demonstrated superior results over MP for liver and kidney [20, 56], avoiding “heat shock” and possibly the side effects (including mitochondrial dysfunction) of quick rewarming [57]. Subsequent studies showed that COR improves renal function after reperfusion (better renal creatinine clearance) and protect mitonchondria integrity [58, 59].

Another alternative technique is to recondition a kidney preserved by hypothermic preservation (either CS or MP) using 2 h of normothermic perfusion with blood. This short period of ex vivo normothermic perfusion (EVNP) immediately before transplantation, has a positive conditioning effect on the graft [60]. A first clinical case published in 2015, demonstrates the feasibility and safety of this technique [61]. A proof of concept clinical trial is currently being carried out in the UK to validate this technique. Alternatively, a slow and controlled increase in temperature up to normothermia using a combination of acellular medium and autologous erythrocytes addition is also currently under evaluation [56, 62].

Finally, at the end of the chain, recipient conditioning could also be applied: recent reports suggested potential therapeutics to protect organs from reperfusion injury, such as remote ischemic conditioning [63]. Other approaches are also interesting with the use of molecules such as statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors).

7. Additives in Preservation Solution: Improve the Now While We Wait for the New

Improving preservation may not necessarily require revisiting the composition of the solution or its temperature, as indeed several compounds have shown the ability to significantly improve quality when added to existing technology. We previously published an extensive review of molecules which could thus be used [1], and are proposing an update below. Some targets such as mitochondria integrity and/or permability, innate immunity, anoxia and O2 transport, endothelial cell integrity and coagulation pathways are outlined in this section [64].

Firstly, several studies have shown that coagulation pathway was one of the key to counteract IRI. Coagulation inhibition takes multiple forms, uncovering the complexity of this pathway. As a first example, in a mouse model of liver IRI, the Protease activated receptor (PAR)-4 pathway was targeted [65], while a clinical study showed that PAR-1 is expressed by DCs in DGF grafts and its activation may induce complement production and a Th1 bias [66]. Secondly, in a mouse model of hepatic IRI, recombinant human thrombomoduling was protective, and specifically this activity was brought through the N-terminal lectin-like domain 1 (D1) subunit, involving TLR4 signaling [67]. Moreover, anticoagulants have demonstrated efficacy, such as an anti-Xa molecule protecting against preservation injury in a pig autotransplantation model [68]; a novel multi-arm heparin PEG conjugate adsorbing the endothelium and protecting against hypoxia in vitro [69]; a mast cell heparin proteoglycan mimetic (APAC), which was shown to be more effective than heparin in protecting against renal IRI in rats [70]; and finally a dual anti-Xa/IIa compound which was successful in limiting reperfusion injury in a pig kidney autotransplantation model [71].

The involvement of complement in IRI has been extensively demonstrated in a variety of mouse models [72] and prompted the testing of complement-targeted therapies against IRI [73] and the initiation of clinical trials to test the benefits of an anti-C5 antibody (Eculizumab) to prevent DGF (Delayed Graft Function) (NCT01403389; NCT01919346), which are still ongoing. Eculizumab treatment in pediatric kidney transplantation permitted better early graft function and improved graft morphology, however there was an unacceptably high number of early graft losses [74]. Inhibition of C1 protease using a recombinant human inhibitor (RhC1INH) inhibited complement deposition in a large animal model of kidney warm ischemia [75] and reduced fibrosis in a mouse model of warm IR [76]. Moreover, this treatment was able to protect kidney grafts, when used only during the reperfusion phase, against acute and chronic IRI in a pig model [77]. Finally, this inhibitor was used in a Phase I/II clinical trial to measure the impact on need for hemodialysis during the first week post-transplant, with significant reductions in need for dialysis and improvements in long-term allograft function observed with C1INH treatment [78]. C3 also appear a viable target, either in vascularized composite allograft model with a targeted inhibitor [79] or at the donor level, when the inhibitor was given as a nebulized solution priori to lung transplantation in a mouse model [80]. Moreover, targeting the alternative pathway also appears beneficial, through for instance the administration of anti-factorB antibody in a mouse kidney transplantation model [81]. Finally, a novel membrane-localized complement inhibitor based on a recombinant fragment of soluble CR1 (APT070, Mirococept) is currently tested in patients (EMPIRIKAL trial, REC 12/LO/1334), offering the possibility to treat the donated kidney before transplantation [82].

Additionally, a natural oxygen carrier extracted from Arenicola marina with high oxygen affinity developed as an additive to standard organ preservation solutions showed a protective effect in a variety of experimental conditions [83, 84]. A novel non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was recently studied in kidney IRI models and its protective effect was well established [85, 86].

Enhanced understanding of cell and mitochondrial behavior during preservation is paramount to improve outcome. Several promising avenues of research are emerging from the study of hibernating species [87], such as the use of H2S [88]. Other concepts include: the replacement of damaged mitochondria with healthy mitochondria at the onset of reperfusion by auto-transplantation in the heart [89]; the control of pH regulation through inhibition of carbonic anhydrase in lung transplantation, which impacts both pCO2 levels, and Na-K-ATPase expression [90]; the sensitization of calcium channels in human hepatocytes for liver transplantation [91]; or the control of systemic iron load to protect against renal ischemia-reperfusion injury-associated sterile inflammation [92]. Finally, other drugs were recently studied: pharmacologic targeting of DHPS by N1-guanyl-1,7-diaminoheptane (GC7) or RNA interference–mediated inhibition of DHPS or DOHH induced tolerance to anoxia in immortalized mouse renal proximal cells [93].

8. Studying Organ Preservation: Where Are the Top Models?

The quest for innovative strategies relies on the availability of predictable models recapitulating as physiologically as possible transplantation-induced IR injury. The models currently available are of 3 types: in vitro cultures of renal cells, ex vivo perfusion of isolated renal structures/organs and in vivo models of kidney ischemia reperfusion and/or transplantation.

In vitro models include culture of renal primary cells or renal cell lines. Both of these cellular systems are cheap, flexible and compatible with high-throughput screening. Indeed, primary tubular cells for instance are able to temporarily keep the architecture, function and polarity of renal epithelial cells [94]. However their proliferation is limited and a de-differentiation rapidly occurs in culture [95]. This is why immortalized cell lines are widely used but their physiological relevance is questioned based on the modification they harbor to proliferate extensively.

In classical cell culture conditions, the Petri dish is composed of one major cell type with cells spread in two dimensions (2D), whereas the adult kidney is a complex organ composed of 26 cell types and displaying highly complex cell-cell and cell-environment interactions. Thus, experiments performed on ex vivo isolated kidneys are of high interest to predict the organ answer to complex stimuli. Rodents or pig kidneys can be collected and perfused on complex apparatus with buffered solutions or whole blood, in an attempt to maintain “normal” physiological/biochemical conditions in a closely monitored perfusion system. In our laboratory and others, pig kidneys are often chosen for their high similarity with human’s and placed in a home-made perfusion apparatus in hypothermic or normothermic conditions, mimicking organ conservation or its reperfusion during transplantation into the recipient. Of note, perfusion systems are disconnected from extrinsic regulatory control mechanisms allowing targeted evaluation of the kidney, real time assessments of various parameters reflecting its state and function, as well as its response to different situations without confounding systemic responses that are present in in vivo studies [96]. The main limitation of these systems are (i) the lifespan of the organ (a few hours with regular system, however using specific perfusion systems 24 hours of conservation may be possible [97]), (ii) the necessity to have access to animal kidneys.

Finally, only in vivo animal experiments allow long-term follow-up of the organ function, and therefore represent the most predictive model especially when performed in large animals. In our laboratory, we have developed a pig preclinical model of kidney auto-transplantation which is invaluable to analyze various mechanisms and treatments in relation to ischemia reperfusion during transplantation [68, 93, 98, 99].

However, mainly for obvious ethical reasons, it is of crucial importance to avoid or limit the use of animals for experimentation whenever possible. In this light, cutting edge technologies can be applied to the field of IR research. Indeed, since 2006 and the first publication describing induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSCs) technology, it is possible to cultivate in the laboratory human iPSCs able to differentiate into all cell types of the human body. Recently, this technology has been combined with 3 dimensions (3D) culture systems to differentiate those cells into complex structures, highly resembling a tiny organ, called organoids [100]. They can be obtained in a 2 step protocol: firstly, cells are differentiated in a 2D monolayer using growth factors and cytokines which mimic first steps of in situ kidney embryonic development. During differentiation, cells are detached and placed on a suspension culture system enabling the further differentiation/maturation and auto-assembly of the cells in 3D. This protocol lead to the formation of spherical structures of a few millimeters in diameter (after ≈25 days of differentiation) intricately organized, vascularized and presenting 8 types of renal cells; authors note the presence of nephron-like structures with evidences of cells from distal tubules, loop of Henlé, Bownman’s capsule, parietal cells, podocytes, epithelium from the collecting duct connected to the nephrons as well as a stromal population and endothelial capillaries.

Thus, working in vitro with human kidney-like miniaturized structures becomes possible. Additionally, use of iPSCs allows choosing the kidney organoid’s genotype. This is possible either by selecting patients affected with one disease of interest to generate iPSCs and further differentiate them into kidney organoids to study renal disease mechanism and treatment [101], or by using genome editing technologies (CRISPR/Cas9) [102] to target specific genes of interest and study how they impact kidney organoid’s response to various stimuli including hypoxia/reoxygenation protocols and resistance/sensitivity to conservation.

9. Improving Kidney Transplantation Outcome: What Else?

Recent advances in regenerative medicine brought new potential strategies in the field of organ transplantation. Among them, cell therapy (i.e injection of cells, usually stem cells or their derivatives) to repair or replace tissues is at the forefront of personalized medicine. Controlling or reducing IR injuries with cell therapy is a tempting approach. Most cell types that have been tested in the context of renal IR are mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from various origin, despite some studies describing the use of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) [103, 104] or cells differentiated from pluripotent stem cells [99, 100]. Importantly, most MSC-based cell therapy approaches have been tested on rodent models of IR-induced AKI, but not on models involving kidney transplantation. Overall, these studies show that administration of stem cell therapy improve global renal function, decreasing fibrosis and tissue damage and augmenting animal survival [105108].

Cell injection timing has been revealed important. One study highlighted that pre-treatment with MSCs (7 days before IR induction) is more efficient than post-treatment (1 day after IR induction) to reduce lesions, this being probably due to a protective effect triggered by lipid metabolism modulation [109]. In our laboratory, using a pig preclinical model of kidney auto-transplantation, we choose the inject MSCs 7 days after kidney transplantation and observed significant improvement of kidney structural integrity and function [98]. Yet, optimal cell injection timing is far from consensual and this issue will have to be carefully studied in relevant preclinical model. Indeed, cell administration route and dosage are two critical factors which may be crucial for cell therapy efficacy: a comparative study observed that 1 × 105 MSCs injected through the renal artery produces a dramatic improvement in renal function and morphology in rat model of renal I/R injury [110].

However, regarding MSCs at least (since the issue can be different for iPS-derived cells for example), there is no strong evidence that the cells are indeed able to graft or even remain in the kidney after their injection, and their protective effects does not appear to rely on their ability to differentiate and replace damaged tissues, but are primarily mediated by paracrine mechanisms. Thus, most approaches under development focus on the use of cell’s secretome, instead of cells themselves. This is possible either by the use of conditioned medium (medium that was placed in contact with the cells for a period of time allowing cell secretion of paracrine factors and cytokines) or microvesicules (MV) directly isolated from the conditioned medium. These are extracellular vesicules important for cell-cell communication and containing miRNAs, mRNAs and proteins. Among paracrine factors identified as important for repair after IR are VEGF [111], Ang-1, and Ang-2. [103] and Glial-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF) [112]. In the case of acute renal IR injury, the literature shows that MSCs contribute to the recovery of mice with IRI-induced AKI primarily through the release of MV [113]. Another study shows that MV from adult rat renal tubular cells significantly improved renal function in rats through a large transcriptomic shift [114]. Of note, exosomes can be injected alone or in combination with MSCs [115], hence an appealing option would be to combine MSC-derived exosomes with cells that are indeed able to graft and differentiate into kidney tissue such as iPS-derived kidney progenitors.

Among MV components, miRNAs are also a potential therapeutic target per se. The role of miRNA in IR was uncovered through a mouse model with genetic deletion of Dicer, enzyme involved in miRNA maturation [116]. This deletion lowered miRNA expression by approximately 80% and was shown to be protective against kidney bilateral I/R. While this approach was highly unspecific, the demonstration was made that miRNA were involved in I/R injury development. The same study showed that IR profoundly affected the miRNome after 12 and 48 hours of reperfusion, with at least 14 targets demonstrating a more than 2 fold change. Another study on mice subjected to 30 min kidney IR confirmed miRNome dysregulation [117]. Other studies in small animals have confirmed the alteration of miR-21 after IR [118]. Interestingly, this target was shown to play an important role in Ischemic Preconditioning (IPC), an efficient technique to ameliorate damage by IRI in different organs like heart, brain, liver, and kidney in several animal models [119121]. miR-21 has several pro-apoptotic targets, hence the hypothesis that its overexpression could protect against cell death during IR. Indeed, in a rat model it was demonstrated that IPC induced miR-21 expression and subsequently protected against kidney IR, an effect that was negated by treated IPC animals with anti-miR-21 [122].

Likewise, long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) constitute a new class of noncoding RNAs that interfere with gene expression and are also involved in the progression of I/R injury such as myocardial, cerebral, hepatic, renal and mesenteric I/R injury [123]. For example, hypoxia-induced long non-coding RNA Malat1 (Metastasis Associated Lung Adenocarcinoma Transcript 1) has been described to be upregulated in renal I/R injury [124].

Additionaly, preconditionning or pre-treatment of MSCs is also a valuable option: IL-17A-pretreated MSCs resulted in significantly lower acute tubular necrosis scores, serum creatinine and BUN of mice with IRI-AKI [125]. Additionally, hypoxia-treated MSCs attenuate AKI through enhanced angiogenic and antioxidative capacities [126], mimicking organ preconditioning. Thus, such approaches can be combined and renal IR in rats was modulated by combination of ischemic preconditioning and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) [127].

Finally, in recent years, gene therapy has been developing, both in terms of targeting and efficacy. In transplantation, several studies have shown the feasibility of such an approach to improve IRI. As an example, in the liver, hepatic stimulator substance (HSS), a protein demonstrated to improve mitochondrial function, was overexpressed (through adenoviral transfer) and conferred resistance to IRI. siRNA can also be used intravenously, for instance to silence the expression of TNF-α: in a lethal kidney ischemia model, this was effective in protecting against IRI [128]. Finally, the stability of siRNA can also permit it to be used during preservation, improving outcome [129].

All these strategies will have to be carefully tested for their safety and short and long-term efficacy in predictive and pertinent models, as we discussed in the last paragraph.

10. Predicting the Future: The Importance of Biomarkers

Detection of chronic allograft injury remains a challenge after kidney transplantation. The objective is to define non-invasive biomarkers, both for graft quality evaluation during machine perfusion and graft function in the recipient. Mixed advances have been made to search for biomarker at the earlier step of the transplantation process, during machine perfusion. A clinical metabolomic study of machine perfusion perfusates showed differences in the metabolomic profiles for kidneys with immediate graft function (IGF) and delayed graft function (DGF) [130].

At the recipient stage, transplantation success is determined with measures of biochemical parameters such as serum creatinine or histopathological biopsy analysis, an invasive method. But the best biomarker of early graft function remains undetermined. Most of the time, scoring systems lacks sensitivity and specificity to achieve unanimity at an international level. The efficiency of creatinine as the best measure of kidney state remains questionable, since its inexpensive and easily implemented measurement is biased by certain physiological parameters such as tubular secretion, the influence of muscular mass or protein intake via nutrition [131]. And most importantly, it is a late marker.

Urinary NGAL, KIM, L FABP-1, Cystatin C, and IL18 were proposed as tools for early detection of acute kidney injury (AKI) but the determination of their validities and clinical utility is still in progress [132]. Concerning short-term outcomes, the presence of urinary IL-18 and NGAL immediately after transplant was associated with increased risk of delayed graft function [133]. Long-term outcomes may also be predicted with associated risk of graft failure and death correlating with elevated urinary tubular injury biomarkers such as IL-18, NGAL, NAG, and KIM. Some of these markers also have particular physiological importance and their presence can be related to structures alterations in specific part of the nephrons such as in proximal tubule structure alteration (KIM1, IL18, and FABP-1) or distal tubule (NGAL, FABP) [134, 135]. Recently, the cytokine IL-33 has been identified on rats as an alarmin contributing to kidney IRI by promoting iNKT cell recruitment and cytokine production, resulting in neutrophil infiltration and activation at the injury site [136]. However, IL-33 potential as a biomarker for kidney transplantation outcome has not been properly tested yet.

Besides “classical” biomarkers, different investigation paths are followed; some of them are listed below:

(i) Chemokines. Two multicentric studies highlighted chemokines as an early predictive tool for kidney rejection, CXCL9 and CXCL10 mRNA especially [137]. CXCL9 mRNA and protein levels showed a negative predictive power [138]. CXCL10, CD3ε, and 18S RNAs allowed the distinction between antibody-mediated and borderline rejection [139].

(ii) Exosomal Urinary NGAL. It has been suggested that NGAL in the exosomes fraction could be more specific to evaluate renal damage because exosomes should be a representation of the physiological sate of the organ while whole urinary NGAL is not only specific for kidney damages [140].

(iii) Serum Uromodulin. Lower level of this kidney-derived glycoprotein was associated with risk of kidney allograft failure [141].

(iv) Epigenetics and miRNA Regulation. Aberrant DNA methylation patterns are already used as biomarkers in cancer, but only a few studies evaluated their role in transplantation. In kidney transplant recipients with subclinical rejection, long‐term allograft outcome was better when FOXP3+Treg cells were present, a subtype characterized by unmethylated locus near the FOXP3 gene [142]. Similarly, the Klotho promoter is hypermethylated in renal tissue and in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with CKD, with the degree of hypermethylation correlating with the clinical and histological severity of CKD [143]. Another promising tool is circulating and urinary miRNA: numerous miRNA associated with kidney disorders has been reported and some of them in the case of transplantation [144]. A panel of 22 urine miRNA measured 3 months after transplantation allowed prediction of chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD) [145].

(v) Epithelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EMT) or Endothelial-to-Mesenchymal Transition (EndMT). Both these processes are of high interest since they generate fibrosis and are induced by several molecular signatures among them TGF beta, EGF, and FGF2. A noninvasive approach has been developed for predicting fibrosis via assessment of the mRNA expression levels of genes implicated in EMT fibrogenesis such as Vimentin and CD45 [146]. Retrospective evaluation of EMT markers (Fascin1, Vimentin, and Heat Shock Protein 47) by immunochemistry in biopsy samples showed that they are a sensitive and reliable diagnostic tool for detecting endothelial activation during antibody-mediated rejection and predicting late loss of allograft function [147].

While the relationship between recipient kidney injury biomarkers and outcomes is relatively clear, the relationship between donor kidney injury biomarkers and recipient outcomes is more complex [134, 148]. In order to lift the hurdles preventing the discovery of new early and effective biomarkers, the generation of biobanks [149] and the use of laboratory for reconditioning the organ [150] (machine perfusion, ex vivo circulation, for instance) are important perspectives to set up projects looking for “ideal” biomarker.

11. Conclusion

While static cold storage is still widely used, and alternative means and solutions to optimize organ quality during its preservation exist in multiple and of various forms (Figure 1). The identification of the donor population which will most benefit from these strategies or combination of these strategies is also a critical question. The complexity also relies on the fact that all the preservation parameters (temperature, oxygen, static or perfusion, etc.) are dependent factors which need to be scientifically evaluated in independent experiments using models which all have their own limits.

There is an urgent need to promote translational research programs for the development of new clinical protocols. Members of the transplant community (academia, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, and funding agencies) need to engage in an active dialogue and collective effort to find and advance therapies for organ preservation, but we need to assemble the evidences and target key questions in one unified effort.


This state-of-the-art review has been written taking into account most important or innovative studies and reviews in the field of kidney preservation (based on the authors’ point of view) with a specific interested for highly translational or clinical studies.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

C. Steichen, S. Giraud, T. Hauet, and R. Thuillier have equal contributions.


We would to thank all the collaborators involved in discussing the key points of this review, including members of COPE (Consortium for Organ Preservation Evaluation).


  1. D. Bon, N. Chatauret, S. Giraud, R. Thuillier, F. Favreau, and T. Hauet, “New strategies to optimize kidney recovery and preservation in transplantation,” Nature Reviews Nephrology, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 339–347, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. A. M. Hameed, H. C. Pleass, G. Wong, and W. J. Hawthorne, “Maximizing kidneys for transplantation using machine perfusion: from the past to the future: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis,” Medicine, vol. 95, no. 40, p. e5083, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. S. S. Rewell, A. L. Jeffreys, S. A. Sastra et al., “Hypothermia revisited: Impact of ischaemic duration and between experiment variability,” Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 3380–3390, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. C. Ponticelli, “Ischaemia-reperfusion injury: a major protagonist in kidney transplantation,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1134–1140, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  5. T. Hauet, Z. Han, C. Doucet et al., “A modified University of Wisconsin preservation solution with high-Na+ low-K+ content reduces reperfusion injury of the pig kidney graft,” Transplantation, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. T. Hauet and M. Eugene, “A new approach in organ preservation: potential role of new polymers,” Kidney International, vol. 74, no. 8, pp. 998–1003, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. T. Hauet, J. M. Goujon, H. Baumert et al., “Polyethylene glycol reduces the inflammatory injury due to cold ischemia/reperfusion in autotransplanted pig kidneys,” Kidney International, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 654–667, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. S. Giraud, R. Thuillier, R. Codas et al., “The optimal peg for kidney preservation: A preclinical porcine study,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 19, no. 2, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  9. M. Eugene, “Polyethyleneglycols and immunocamouflage of the cells tissues and organs for transplantation,” Cellular and Molecular Biology (Noisy-le-Grand, France), vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 209–215, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  10. G. Opelz and B. Döhler, “Multicenter analysis of kidney preservation,” Transplantation, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 247–253, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Debout, Y. Foucher, K. Trébern-Launay et al., “Each additional hour of cold ischemia time significantly increases the risk of graft failure and mortality following renal transplantation,” Kidney International, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 343–349, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. J. Kox, C. Moers, D. Monbaliu et al., “The Benefits of Hypothermic Machine Preservation and Short Cold Ischemia Times in Deceased Donor Kidneys,” Transplantation, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 1344–1350, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. G. Orlando, R. Danger, H. Okut et al., “Molecular Pathways Underlying Adaptive Repair of the Injured Kidney: Novel Donation After Cardiac Death and Acute Kidney Injury Platforms,” Annals of Surgery, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. M. S. Sampaio, B. Chopra, A. Tang, and K. K. Sureshkumar, “Impact of cold ischemia time on the outcomes of kidneys with Kidney Donor Profile Index ≥85%: mate kidney analysis - a retrospective study,” Transplant International, vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 729–738, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. E. T. Chouchani, V. R. Pell, E. Gaude et al., “Ischaemic accumulation of succinate controls reperfusion injury through mitochondrial ROS,” Nature, vol. 515, no. 7527, pp. 431–435, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. R. F. Van Golen, M. J. Reiniers, N. Vrisekoop et al., “The mechanisms and physiological relevance of glycocalyx degradation in hepatic ischemia/reperfusion injury,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1098–1118, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. J. M. O'Callaghan, K. T. Pall, L. H. M. Pengel, J. M. O'Callaghan, L. H. M. Pengel, and L. H. M. Pengel, “Supplemental oxygen during hypothermic kidney preservation: A systematic review,” Transplantation Reviews, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 172–179, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. I. Jochmans, M. Z. Akhtar, D. Nasralla et al., “Past, Present, and Future of Dynamic Kidney and Liver Preservation and Resuscitation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2545–2555, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. R. Thuillier, G. Allain, O. Celhay et al., “Benefits of active oxygenation during hypothermic machine perfusion of kidneys in a preclinical model of deceased after cardiac death donors,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 184, no. 2, pp. 1174–1181, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. T. Minor, C. Von Horn, and A. Paul, “Role of temperature in reconditioning and evaluation of cold preserved kidney and liver grafts,” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 267–273, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. S. A. Hosgood, H. F. L. Nicholson, and M. L. Nicholson, “Oxygenated kidney preservation techniques,” Transplantation, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 455–459, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. M. E. Snell and W. I. Hopkinson, “Studies on the preservation of kidneys under hyperbaric oxygen after significant warm ischemia,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 275–277, 1974. View at: Google Scholar
  23. W. F. Hendry, N. W. Struthers, W. P. Duguid, and W. I. Hopkinson, “Twenty-four-hour storage of kidneys.,” The Lancet, vol. 1, no. 7554, pp. 1221–1225, 1968. View at: Google Scholar
  24. J. W. Treckmann, A. Paul, S. Saad et al., “Primary organ function of warm ischaemically damaged porcine kidneys after retrograde oxygen persufflation,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1803–1808, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. J. H. Lee, S. Y. Hong, C.-K. Oh, Y. S. Hong, and H. Yim, “Kidney transplantation from a donor following cardiac death supported with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation,” Journal of Korean Medical Science, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 115–119, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. M.-H. J. Maathuis, S. Manekeller, A. Van Der Plaats et al., “Improved kidney graft function after preservation using a novel hypothermic machine perfusion device,” Annals of Surgery, vol. 246, no. 6, pp. 982–989, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. S. L. Lindell, H. Muir, J. Brassil, and M. J. Mangino, “Hypothermic Machine Perfusion Preservation of the DCD Kidney: Machine Effects,” Journal of Transplantation, vol. 2013, Article ID 802618, 7 pages, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. L. Brasile, P. Delvecchio, K. Amyot, C. Haisch, and J. Clarke, “Organ Preservation without Extreme Hypothermia Using an Oxygent™ Supplemented Perfusate,” Artificial Cells, Blood Substitutes, and Biotechnology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1463–1468, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. D. E. Pegg, J. Foreman, C. J. Hunt, and M. P. Diaper, “The mechanism of action of retrograde oxygen persufflation in renal preservation,” Transplantation, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 210–217, 1989. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. L. Zandarashvili and J. Iwahara, “Temperature dependence of internal motions of protein side-chain NH3+ groups: Insight into energy barriers for transient breakage of hydrogen bonds,” Biochemistry, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 538–545, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. J. R. Neely and L. W. Grotyohann, “Role of glycolytic products in damage to ischemic myocardium. Dissociation of adenosine triphosphate levels and recovery of function of reperfused ischemic hearts,” Circulation Research, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 816–824, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. A. D. C. Macknight and A. Leaf, “Regulation of cellular volume,” Physiological Reviews, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 510–573, 1977. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. C. Fleury, B. Mignotte, and J.-L. Vayssière, “Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species in cell death signaling,” Biochimie, vol. 84, no. 2-3, pp. 131–141, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. H. K. Eltzschig and T. Eckle, “Ischemia and reperfusion—from mechanism to translation,” Nature Medicine, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 1391–1401, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. A. K. Salahudeen, “Consequences of Cold Ischemic Injury of Kidneys in Clinical Transplantation,” Journal of Investigative Medicine, vol. 52, no. 05, pp. 296–298, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. I. Jochmans, M. L. Nicholson, and S. A. Hosgood, “Kidney perfusion: Some like it hot others prefer to keep it cool,” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 260–266, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. J. M. Kaths, A. Paul, L. A. Robinson, and M. Selzner, “Ex vivo machine perfusion for renal graft preservation,” Transplantation Reviews, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. C. Yong, S. A. Hosgood, and M. L. Nicholson, “Ex-vivo normothermic perfusion in renal transplantation: Past, present and future,” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 301–307, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. R. Thuillier and T. Hauet, “Impact of Hypothermia and Oxygen Deprivation on the Cytoskeleton in Organ Preservation Models,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 8926724, 10 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. R. M. Cannon, G. N. Brock, R. N. Garrison, M. R. Marvin, G. A. Franklin, and E. G. Davis, “Machine perfusion: Not just for marginal kidney donors,” The American Surgeon, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 550–556, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  41. N. Chatauret, R. Coudroy, P. O. Delpech et al., “Mechanistic analysis of nonoxygenated hypothermic machine perfusion's protection on warm ischemic kidney uncovers greater enos phosphorylation and vasodilation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2500–2514, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. S. K. Patel, O. G. Pankewycz, N. D. Nader, M. Zachariah, R. Kohli, and M. R. Laftavi, “Prognostic utility of hypothermic machine perfusion in deceased donor renal transplantation,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 2207–2212, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. C. Moers, O. C. Varnav, E. Van Heurn et al., “The value of machine perfusion perfusate biomarkers for predicting kidney transplant outcome,” Transplantation, vol. 90, no. 9, pp. 966–973, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. D. Bon, B. Claire, R. Thuillier et al., “Analysis of perfusates during hypothermic machine perfusion by NMR spectroscopy: A potential tool for predicting kidney graft outcome,” Transplantation, vol. 97, no. 8, pp. 810–816, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. F. O. Belzer, N. R. Glass, H. W. Sollinger, R. M. Hoffmann, and J. H. Southard, “A new perfusate for kidney preservation,” Transplantation, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 322-323, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  46. F. Gage, D. B. Leeser, N. K. Porterfield et al., “Room temperature pulsatile perfusion of renal allografts with lifor compared with hypothermic machine pump solution,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 3571–3574, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. H. Groen, C. Moers, J. M. Smits et al., “Cost-effectiveness of hypothermic machine preservation versus static cold storage in renal transplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 12, no. 7, pp. 1824–1830, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. J. Treckmann, C. Moers, J. M. Smits et al., “Machine perfusion in clinical trials: "Machine vs. solution effects",” Transplant International, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. e69–e70, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. A. J. Hessheimer, J. C. García-Valdecasas, and C. Fondevila, “Abdominal regional in-situ perfusion in donation after circulatory determination of death donors,” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 322–328, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. T. Kerforne, G. Allain, S. Giraud et al., “Defining the optimal duration for normothermic regional perfusion in the kidney donor: A porcine preclinical study,” American Journal of Transplantation, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. R. Valero, C. Cabrer, F. Oppenheimer et al., “Normothermic recirculation reduces primary graft dysfunction of kidneys obtained from non-heart-beating donors,” Transplant International, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 303–310, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. I. Abboud, D. Viglietti, C. Antoine et al., “Preliminary results of transplantation with kidneys donated after cardiocirculatory determination of death: A French single-centre experience,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 2583–2587, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. B. Barrou, C. Billault, and A. Nicolas-Robin, “The use of extracorporeal membranous oxygenation in donors after cardiac death,” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 148–153, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. J. Demiselle, J.-F. Augusto, M. Videcoq et al., “Transplantation of kidneys from uncontrolled donation after circulatory determination of death: Comparison with brain death donors with or without extended criteria and impact of normothermic regional perfusion,” Transplant International, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 432–442, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. G. C. Oniscu, L. V. Randle, P. Muiesan et al., “In situ normothermic regional perfusion for controlled donation after circulatory death - The United Kingdom experience,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 2846–2854, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  56. C. von Horn, H. A. Baba, P. Hannaert et al., “Controlled oxygenated rewarming up to normothermia for pretransplant reconditioning of liver grafts,” Clinical Transplantation, vol. 31, no. 11, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  57. N. Gilbo and D. Monbaliu, “Temperature and oxygenation during organ preservation: Friends or foes?” Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 290–299, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  58. I. Schopp, E. Reissberg, B. Lüer, P. Efferz, and T. Minor, “Controlled Rewarming after Hypothermia: Adding a New Principle to Renal Preservation,” Clinical and Translational Science, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 475–478, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. T. Minor, K. Sutschet, O. Witzke, A. Paul, and A. Gallinat, “Prediction of renal function upon reperfusion by ex situ controlled oxygenated rewarming,” European Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 46, no. 12, pp. 1024–1030, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  60. S. A. Hosgood, A. D. Barlow, P. J. Yates, M. G. J. Snoeijs, E. L. W. Van Heurn, and M. L. Nicholson, “A pilot study assessing the feasibility of a short period of normothermic preservation in an experimental model of non heart beating donor kidneys,” Journal of Surgical Research, vol. 171, no. 1, pp. 283–290, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. S. A. Hosgood and M. L. Nicholson, “The first clinical case of intermediate ex vivo normothermic perfusion in renal transplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 14, no. 7, pp. 1690–1692, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  62. C. von Horn and T. Minor, “Improved approach for normothermic machine perfusion of cold stored kidney grafts,” American Journal of Translational Research, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1921–1929, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  63. Z. Czigany, C. Bleilevens, C. Beckers et al., “Limb remote ischemic conditioning of the recipient protects the liver in a rat model of arterialized orthotopic liver transplantation,” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 4, p. e0195507, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  64. H. H. Szeto, “Pharmacologic approaches to improve mitochondrial function in AKI and CKD,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 2856–2865, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  65. K. Mende, J. Reifart, D. Rosentreter et al., “Targeting platelet migration in the postischemic liver by blocking protease-activated receptor 4,” Transplantation, vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 154–160, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  66. P. Pontrelli, M. Cariello, F. Rascio et al., “Thrombin may modulate dendritic cell activation in kidney transplant recipients with delayed graft function,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 1480–1487, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  67. K. Kadono, Y. Uchida, H. Hirao et al., “Thrombomodulin Attenuates Inflammatory Damage Due to Liver Ischemia and Reperfusion Injury in Mice in Toll-Like Receptor 4–Dependent Manner,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 69–80, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. S. Tillet, S. Giraud, P. O. Delpech et al., “Kidney graft outcome using an anti-Xa therapeutic strategy in an experimental model of severe ischaemia-reperfusion injury,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 132–142, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. S. Nordling, J. Hong, K. Fromell et al., “Vascular repair utilising immobilised heparin conjugate for protection against early activation of inflammation and coagulation,” Thrombosis and Haemostasis, vol. 113, no. 6, pp. 1312–1322, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  70. R. Tuuminen, A. Jouppila, D. Salvail et al., “Dual antiplatelet and anticoagulant APAC prevents experimental ischemia–reperfusion-induced acute kidney injury,” Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 436–445, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  71. S. Tillet, S. Giraud, T. Kerforne et al., “Inhibition of coagulation proteases Xa and IIa decreases ischemia–reperfusion injuries in a preclinical renal transplantation model,” Translational Research, vol. 178, pp. 95–106.e1, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  72. N. C. Riedemann and P. A. Ward, “Complement in ischemia reperfusion injury,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 363–367, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  73. S. Sacks, J. Karegli, C. A. Farrar et al., “Targeting complement at the time of transplantation,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 735, pp. 247–255, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
  74. M. Kaabak, N. Babenko, R. Shapiro, A. Zokoyev, O. Dymova, and E. Kim, “A prospective randomized, controlled trial of eculizumab to prevent ischemia-reperfusion injury in pediatric kidney transplantation,” Pediatric Transplantation, vol. 22, no. 2, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  75. G. Castellano, R. Melchiorre, A. Loverre et al., “Therapeutic targeting of classical and lectin pathways of complement protects from ischemia-reperfusion-induced renal damage,” The American Journal of Pathology, vol. 176, no. 4, pp. 1648–1659, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  76. J. S. Danobeitia, M. Ziemelis, X. Ma et al., “Complement inhibition attenuates acute kidney injury after ischemia-reperfusion and limits progression to renal fibrosis in mice,” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 8, p. e0183701, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  77. P.-O. Delpech, R. Thuillier, T. SaintYves et al., “Inhibition of complement improves graft outcome in a pig model of kidney autotransplantation,” Journal of Translational Medicine, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  78. S. C. Jordan, J. Choi, O. Aubert et al., “A phase I/II, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing safety and efficacy of C1 esterase inhibitor for prevention of delayed graft function in deceased donor kidney transplant recipients,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 2955–2964, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  79. P. Zhu, S. R. Bailey, B. Lei, C. M. Paulos, C. Atkinson, and S. Tomlinson, “Targeted Complement Inhibition Protects Vascularized Composite Allografts from Acute Graft Injury and Prolongs Graft Survival When Combined with Subtherapeutic Cyclosporine A Therapy,” Transplantation, vol. 101, no. 4, pp. e75–e85, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  80. Q. Cheng, K. Patel, B. Lei et al., “Donor pretreatment with nebulized complement C3a receptor antagonist mitigates brain-death induced immunological injury post-lung transplant,” American Journal of Transplantation, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  81. F. Casiraghi, N. Azzollini, M. Todeschini et al., “Complement Alternative Pathway Deficiency in Recipients Protects Kidney Allograft From Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury and Alloreactive T Cell Response,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 2312–2325, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  82. T. Kassimatis, A. Qasem, A. Douiri et al., “A double-blind randomised controlled investigation into the efficacy of Mirococept (APT070) for preventing ischaemia reperfusion injury in the kidney allograft (EMPIRIKAL): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial,” Trials, vol. 18, no. 1, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  83. M. Glorion, V. Polard, F. Favereau et al., “Prevention of ischemia-reperfusion lung injury during static cold preservation by supplementation of standard preservation solution with HEMO2life® in pig lung transplantation model,” Artificial Cells, Nanomedicine and Biotechnology, pp. 1–8, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  84. R. Thuillier, D. Dutheil, M. T. N. Trieu et al., “Supplementation with a new therapeutic oxygen carrier reduces chronic fibrosis and organ dysfunction in kidney static preservation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 1845–1860, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  85. J. Barrera-Chimal, G. R. Estrela, S. M. Lechner et al., “The myeloid mineralocorticoid receptor controls inflammatory and fibrotic responses after renal injury via macrophage interleukin-4 receptor signaling,” Kidney International, vol. 93, no. 6, pp. 1344–1355, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  86. J. Barrera-Chimal, G. André-Grégoire, A. N. D. Cat et al., “Benefit of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonism in AKI: Role of vascular smooth muscle Rac1,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1216–1226, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  87. G. J. Dugbartey, M. C. Hardenberg, W. F. Kok et al., “Renal Mitochondrial Response to Low Temperature in Non-Hibernating and Hibernating Species,” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 27, no. 9, pp. 599–617, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. G. J. Dugbartey, H. R. Bouma, M. N. Saha, I. Lobb, R. H. Henning, and A. Sener, “A Hibernation-Like State for Transplantable Organs: Is Hydrogen Sulfide Therapy the Future of Organ Preservation?” Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, vol. 28, no. 16, pp. 1503–1515, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  89. B. Shin, D. B. Cowan, S. M. Emani, P. J. Del Nido, and J. D. McCully, “Mitochondrial Transplantation in Myocardial Ischemia and Reperfusion Injury,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol. 982, pp. 595–619, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  90. C. Lan, C. Peng, S. Tang, K. Huang, C. Wu, and N. Palaniyar, “Carbonic anhydrase inhibitor attenuates ischemia-reperfusion induced acute lung injury,” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 6, p. e0179822, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  91. S. N. Brunner, N. V. Bogert, A. A. Schnitzbauer et al., “Levosimendan protects human hepatocytes from ischemia-reperfusion injury,” PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 11, p. e0187839, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  92. C. Vaugier, M. T. Amano, J. M. Chemouny et al., “Serum iron protects from renal postischemic injury,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 3605–3615, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  93. N. Melis, I. Rubera, M. Cougnon et al., “Targeting eIF5A hypusination prevents anoxic cell death through mitochondrial silencing and improves kidney transplant outcome,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 811–822, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  94. C. J. Detrisac, M. A. Sens, A. J. Garvin, S. S. Spicer, and D. A. Sens, “Tissue culture of human kidney epithelial cells of proximal tubule origin,” Kidney International, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 383–390, 1984. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  95. M. El Mouedden, G. Laurent, M.-P. Mingeot-Leclercq, H. S. Taper, J. Cumps, and P. M. Tulkens, “Apoptosis in renal proximal tubules of rats treated with low doses of aminoglycosides,” Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 665–675, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  96. R. Kumar, W. Y. Chung, A. R. Dennison, and G. Garcea, “Ex Vivo Porcine Organ Perfusion Models as a Suitable Platform for Translational Transplant Research,” Artificial Organs, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. E69–E79, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. W. Y. Chung, G. Gravante, D. Al-Leswas et al., “The Development of a Multiorgan Ex Vivo Perfused Model: Results With the Porcine Liver-Kidney Circuit Over 24 Hours,” Artificial Organs, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 457–466, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  98. E. Baulier, F. Favreau, A. Le Corf et al., “Amniotic fluid-derived mesenchymal stem cells prevent fibrosis and preserve renal function in a preclinical porcine model of kidney transplantation,” Stem Cells Translational Medicine, vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 809–820, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  99. S. Giraud, F. Favreau, N. Chatauret, R. Thuillier, S. Maiga, and T. Hauet, “Contribution of large pig for renal ischemia-reperfusion and transplantation studies: the preclinical model,” Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, vol. 2011, Article ID 532127, 14 pages, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. M. Takasato, P. X. Er, H. S. Chiu et al., “Kidney organoids from human iPS cells contain multiple lineages and model human nephrogenesis,” Nature, vol. 526, no. 7574, pp. 564–568, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  101. T. A. Forbes, S. E. Howden, K. Lawlor et al., “Patient-iPSC-Derived Kidney Organoids Show Functional Validation of a Ciliopathic Renal Phenotype and Reveal Underlying Pathogenetic Mechanisms,” American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 102, no. 5, pp. 816–831, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. B. S. Freedman, C. R. Brooks, A. Q. Lam et al., “Modelling kidney disease with CRISPR-mutant kidney organoids derived from human pluripotent epiblast spheroids,” Nature Communications, vol. 6, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
  103. J. Xue, Z. Qin, X. Li, P. Cao, and R. Jia, “Protective effects of ischemic preconditioning- mediated homing of endothelial progenitor cells on renal acute ischemia and reperfusion injury in male rats,” Annals of Transplantation, vol. 22, pp. 66–74, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  104. C.-J. Liang, W.-C. Shen, F.-B. Chang et al., “Endothelial progenitor cells derived from wharton's jelly of human umbilical cord attenuate ischemic acute kidney injury by increasing vascularization and decreasing apoptosis, inflammation, and fibrosis,” Cell Transplantation, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 1363–1377, 2015. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  105. C. Lee, M. J. Jang, B. H. Kim et al., “Recovery of renal function after administration of adipose-tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction in rat model of acute kidney injury induced by ischemia/reperfusion injury,” Cell and Tissue Research, vol. 368, no. 3, pp. 603–613, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  106. S. R. Fahmy, A. M. Soliman, M. El Ansary, S. M. Abd Elhamid, and H. Mohsen, “Therapeutic efficacy of human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells transplantation against renal ischemia/reperfusion injury in rats,” Tissue & Cell, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 369–375, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  107. L. Zhou, Q. Song, J. Shen et al., “Comparison of human adipose stromal vascular fraction and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells for the attenuation of acute renal ischemia/reperfusion injury,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 44058, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  108. Y. Xie, J. Xiao, C. Fu, Z. Zhang, Z. Ye, and X. Zhang, “Ischemic Preconditioning Promotes Autophagy and Alleviates Renal Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2018, Article ID 8353987, 11 pages, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  109. P. Erpicum, P. Rowart, L. Poma, J.-M. Krzesinski, O. Detry, and F. Jouret, “Administration of mesenchymal stromal cells before renal ischemia/reperfusion attenuates kidney injury and may modulate renal lipid metabolism in rats,” Scientific Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  110. J. Cai, X. Yu, R. Xu, Y. Fang, X. Qian, and J. Teng, “Correction: Maximum efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in rat model of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury: Renal artery administration with optimal numbers,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 6, p. e92347, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  111. M. G. M. C. Mori da Cunha, S. Zia, D. V. Beckmann et al., “Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Up-regulation in Human Amniotic Fluid Stem Cell Enhances Nephroprotection after Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury in the Rat,” Critical Care Medicine, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. e86–e96, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  112. J. Wang, F. Wang, Z. Wang et al., “Protective effect of GDNF-engineered amniotic fluid-derived stem cells on the renal ischaemia reperfusion injury in vitro,” Cell Proliferation, vol. 51, no. 2, p. e12400, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  113. A. Ranghino, S. Bruno, B. Bussolati et al., “The effects of glomerular and tubular renal progenitors and derived extracellular vesicles on recovery from acute kidney injury,” Stem Cell Research & Therapy, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 24, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  114. J. H. Dominguez, Y. Liu, H. Gao, J. M. Dominguez, D. Xie, and K. J. Kelly, “Renal tubular cell-derived extracellular vesicles accelerate the recovery of established renal ischemia reperfusion injury,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 3533–3544, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  115. K.-C. Lin, H.-K. Yip, P.-L. Shao et al., “Combination of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSC) and ADMSC-derived exosomes for protecting kidney from acute ischemia-reperfusion injury,” International Journal of Cardiology, vol. 216, pp. 173–185, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  116. Y. Lee, M. Kim, J. Han et al., “MicroRNA genes are transcribed by RNA polymerase II,” EMBO Journal, vol. 23, no. 20, pp. 4051–4060, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  117. J. G. Godwin, X. Ge, K. Stephan, A. Jurisch, S. G. Tullius, and J. Iacomini, “Identification of a microRNA signature of renal ischemia reperfusion injury,” Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, no. 32, pp. 14339–14344, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  118. T. Kaucsár, C. Révész, M. Godó et al., “Activation of the miR-17 family and miR-21 during murine kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury,” Nucleic Acid Therapeutics , vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 344–354, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  119. S. V. Narayanan, K. R. Dave, and M. A. Perez-Pinzon, “Ischemic preconditioning and clinical scenarios,” Current Opinion in Neurology, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  120. D. J. Hausenloy and D. M. Yellon, “Preconditioning and postconditioning: underlying mechanisms and clinical application,” Atherosclerosis, vol. 204, no. 2, pp. 334–341, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  121. N. Selzner, M. Boehnert, and M. Selzner, “Preconditioning, postconditioning, and remote conditioning in solid organ transplantation: basic mechanisms and translational applications,” Transplantation Reviews, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 115–124, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  122. X. Xu, A. J. Kriegel, Y. Liu et al., “Delayed ischemic preconditioning contributes to renal protection by upregulation of miR-21,” Kidney International, vol. 82, no. 11, pp. 1167–1175, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  123. S.-Y. Yu, L. Tang, and S.-H. Zhou, “Long Noncoding RNAs: New Players in Ischaemia-Reperfusion Injury,” Heart, Lung and Circulation, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 322–332, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  124. M. Kölling, C. Genschel, T. Kaucsar et al., “Hypoxia-induced long non-coding RNA Malat1 is dispensable for renal ischemia/reperfusion-injury,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  125. M. Bai, L. Zhang, B. Fu et al., “IL-17A improves the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells in ischemic-reperfusion renal injury by increasing Treg percentages by the COX-2/PGE2 pathway,” Kidney International, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 814–825, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
  126. W. Zhang, L. Liu, Y. Huo, Y. Yang, and Y. Wang, “Hypoxia-Pretreated Human MSCs Attenuate Acute Kidney Injury through Enhanced Angiogenic and Antioxidative Capacities,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 462472, 10 pages, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  127. A. M. Hussein, N. Barakat, A. Awadalla et al., “Modulation of renal ischemia/reperfusion in rats by a combination of ischemic preconditioning and adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs),” Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, vol. 94, no. 9, pp. 936–946, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  128. L. Hou, G. Chen, B. Feng et al., “Small interfering RNA targeting TNF-a gene significantly attenuates renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in mice,” Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Medical Sciences, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 634–638, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  129. X. Zheng, G. Y. Zang, J. Jiang et al., “Attenuating ischemia-reperfusion injury in kidney transplantation by perfusing donor organs with siRNA cocktail solution,” Transplantation, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 743–752, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  130. J. Nath, A. Guy, T. B. Smith et al., “Metabolomic perfusate analysis during kidney machine perfusion: The pig provides an appropriate model for human studies,” PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 12, p. e114818, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
  131. P. Delanaye, E. Cavalier, and H. Pottel, “Serum Creatinine: Not so Simple!,” Nephron, vol. 136, no. 4, pp. 302–308, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  132. J. L. Slocum, M. Heung, and S. Pennathur, “Marking renal injury: can we move beyond serum creatinine?” Translational Research, vol. 159, no. 4, pp. 277–289, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  133. I. E. Hall, S. G. Yarlagadda, S. G. Coca et al., “IL-18 and urinary NGAL predict dialysis and graft recovery after kidney transplantation,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 189–197, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  134. J. A. Schaub and C. R. Parikh, “Biomarkers of acute kidney injury and associations with shortand long-term outcomes,” F1000Research, vol. 5, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
  135. I. E. Hall, M. D. Doshi, P. P. Reese, R. J. Marcus, H. Thiessen-Philbrook, and C. R. Parikh, “Association between peritransplant kidney injury biomarkers and 1-year allograft outcomes,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1224–1233, 2012. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  136. M. Ferhat, A. Robin, S. Giraud et al., “Endogenous IL-33 contributes to kidney ischemia-reperfusion injury as an alarmin,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1272–1288, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  137. S. C. Kim, E. K. Page, and S. J. Knechtle, “Urine proteomics in kidney transplantation,” Transplantation Reviews, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 15–20, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  138. D. E. Hricik, P. Nickerson, R. N. Formica et al., “Multicenter validation of urinary CXCL9 as a risk-stratifying biomarker for kidney transplant injury,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2634–2644, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  139. M. Suthanthiran, J. E. Schwartz, R. Ding et al., “Urinary-cell mRNA profile and acute cellular rejection in kidney allografts,” The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 369, no. 1, pp. 20–31, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  140. S. Alvarez, C. Suazo, A. Boltansky et al., “Urinary exosomes as a source of kidney dysfunction biomarker in renal transplantation,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 3719–3723, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  141. A. Bostom, D. Steubl, P. Garimella et al., “Serum Uromodulin: A Biomarker of Long-Term Kidney Allograft Failure,” American Journal of Nephrology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 275–282, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  142. O. Bestard, L. Cuñetti, J. M. Cruzado et al., “Intragraft regulatory T cells in protocol biopsies retain Foxp3 demethylation and are protective biomarkers for kidney graft outcome,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 2162–2172, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  143. J. Chen, X. Zhang, H. Zhang et al., “Elevated Klotho Promoter Methylation Is Associated with Severity of Chronic Kidney Disease,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 11, p. e79856, 2013. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  144. N. Janszky and C. Süsal, “Circulating and urinary microRNAs as possible biomarkers in kidney transplantation,” Transplantation Reviews, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 110–118, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  145. DG. Maluf, CI. Dumur, and JL. Suh, “The urine microRNA profile may help monitor post-transplant renal graft function,” Kidney International, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 439–449, 2014. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  146. I. Mezni, P. Galichon, M. Mongi Bacha et al., “Urinary mRNA analysis of biomarkers to epithelial mesenchymal transition of renal allograft,” Néphrologie & Thérapeutique, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 153–161, 2018. View at: Google Scholar
  147. Y.-C. Xu-Dubois, J. Peltier, I. Brocheriou et al., “Markers of endothelial-to-mesenchymal transition: evidence for antibody-endothelium interaction during antibody-mediated rejection in kidney recipients,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 324–332, 2016. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  148. M. Salvadori and A. Tsalouchos, “Biomarkers in renal transplantation: An updated review,” World Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, pp. 161–178, 2017. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  149. Z. Hanif, N. Sufiyan, M. Patel, and M. Z. Akhtar, “Role of biobanks in transplantation,” Annals of Medicine and Surgery, vol. 28, pp. 30–33, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  150. C. von Horn and T. Minor, “Isolated kidney perfusion: the influence of pulsatile flow,” Scandinavian Journal of Clinical & Laboratory Investigation, vol. 78, no. 1-2, pp. 131–135, 2018. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2018 C. Steichen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1155 Views | 428 Downloads | 4 Citations
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly and safely as possible. Any author submitting a COVID-19 paper should notify us at to ensure their research is fast-tracked and made available on a preprint server as soon as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted articles related to COVID-19.