Journal of Immunology Research

Journal of Immunology Research / 2016 / Article
Special Issue

The Humoral Theory of Transplantation

View this Special Issue

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2016 |Article ID 7473239 | 9 pages | https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7473239

The Effect of Histological CD20-Positive B Cell Infiltration in Acute Cellular Rejection on Kidney Transplant Allograft Survival

Academic Editor: Mepur H. Ravindranath
Received23 Sep 2016
Accepted16 Nov 2016
Published12 Dec 2016

Abstract

Background. It is controversial whether lymphocyte infiltration exhibited in biopsy specimens is associated with transplant outcomes. This study focused on the effect of CD20-positive B cell infiltration in biopsy specimens from allografts with acute cellular rejection (ACR) in a Chinese population. Methods. Altogether, 216 patients transplanted from Sep. 2001 to Dec. 2014 with biopsy-proved ACR (Banff I or Banff II) were included in the analysis. Biopsies were immunostained for CD20 and C4d. Baseline information, serum creatinine and GFR before and after treatment, steroid resistance, response to treatment, graft loss, and survival were analyzed. Results. Eighty-three patients were classified into CD20-negative group, and 133 patients were classified into CD20-positive group. Significantly more CD20-negative patients (49/83, 59.0%) received steroid plus antibody therapy compared with the CD20-positive group (52/133, 39.1%) (). The response to treatment for ACR did not differ between these two groups. The CD20-positive group had less graft loss (18.8% versus 32.5%, ) and a better graft survival rate. Further exploration of the infiltration degree suggested that it tended to be positively related to graft survival, but this did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion. CD20-positive B cell infiltration in renal allograft biopsies with ACR is associated with less steroid resistance and better graft survival. The presence of CD20-positive B cells is protective for renal allografts.

1. Introduction

Acute rejection (AR) is a major risk factor for chronic allograft nephropathy and renal allograft failure after kidney transplantation [1]. The Banff classification criteria divided AR into acute cellular rejection (ACR) and acute humoral rejection [2]. ACR is also known as “T cell mediated rejection,” as it is associated with cytotoxic T cell infiltration. However, long-term allograft survival has not been completely improved by controlling factors that affect the T cell pathway [35]. In addition to T cells, other inflammatory cells, including CD20-positive B cells [68], plasma cells [911], macrophages [1215], eosinophils [1618], and NK cells [19], can also infiltrate grafts in ACR and may affect the severity of rejection and the therapeutic response.

The role of CD20-positive B lymphocytes in renal allograft biopsy specimens is still controversial. Using DNA microarrays and immunohistochemical staining, Sarwal et al. reported the presence of CD20-positive B lymphocytes in the graft interstitium of pediatric recipients with ACR for the first time, and they concluded that it was strongly associated with clinical glucocorticoid resistance and graft loss [7]. Subsequently, Hippen et al. classified ACR biopsies into the CD20-positive group if they demonstrated strong and diffuse staining characteristics, while trace or rare CD20-positivity was recognized as the CD20-negative group [6]. Their research suggested that CD20-positive infiltrates correlated with worse clinical outcomes. Other studies also suggested a correlation between CD20 graft infiltration and steroid-resistant rejection [20, 21]. However, relevant studies have argued that CD20-positive B cells exhibited in biopsies have no effect on clinical outcome [22, 23]. Clatworthy et al. conducted a clinical trial comparing rituximab (an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) with daclizumab (an anti-CD25 monoclonal antibody) as induction therapy in nonsensitive kidney transplant recipients, but this trial was suspended because of an excess incidence of ACR in the rituximab group [24]. The authors surmised that this anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody might have cleared immunoregulatory B cells, including B cells in the allograft tissue, which led to a marked increase in ACR. Disagreements that exist in published studies may be because of a relatively small sample size and lack of a unified standard for the definitions of what is CD20-positive and CD20-negative.

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of CD20-positive B cell graft infiltration during ACR on allograft outcome in a Chinese population.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Patients

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent kidney transplantation between September 2001 and December 2014 at the Kidney Disease Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University (Hangzhou, China). This study was approved by the Committee of Ethics in Biomedical Research of Zhejiang University. Pathological records, clinical data, test results, and follow-up information of all patients were collected from the electronic medical record system and the kidney transplantation database of our center.

Altogether, 217 patients were identified with biopsy-proven ACR (grade I or II) according to the Banff 2005 criteria and were negative for C4d staining. Excluding one patient who was lost of follow-up after antirejection treatment, 216 patients were included in this analysis. All patients were followed up until June 30, 2015. According to the presence of CD20-positive B cell infiltration, 83 recipients were classified into the CD20-negative group, and 133 were classified into the CD20-positive group. The pathologic types of ACR in these two groups were listed in Table 1.


Type (grade)CD20-negative
()
CD20-positive
()

IA3065
IB313
IIA4534
IA + IIA313
IB + IIA15
IA + IIB02
IIB11

Most of the recipients received calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) (cyclosporine or tacrolimus) in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroids as maintenance immunosuppressive regimen, while some received rapamycin in place of CNI. Cyclosporine (CsA) was initiated at 5 mg/kg/d and tacrolimus (FK506) at 0.10–0.15 mg/kg/d. The drug dosage was adjusted according to the plasma concentration. The target plasma concentration for CsA and FK506 was 250–300 μg/L and 8–12 μg/L, respectively, during the first month after transplantation; 200–250 μg/L and 6–10 μg/L, respectively, from the second to the third month; 150–200 μg/L and 4–8 μg/L, respectively, from the fourth to the sixth month; and around 150 μg/L and 3–6 μg/L, respectively, after the sixth month. MMF was started at 1.5–2 g/d for half a month and maintained at 1 g/d thereafter. Methylprednisolone was given at 6 mg/kg on the third postoperative day. Since then, starting from 80 mg/d, with a daily reduction of 10 mg, prednisone was maintained at 10–15 mg/d.

Once acute rejection was proven by allograft biopsy, intravenous methylprednisolone was administrated at 6–10 mg/kg daily for 3 days as pulse therapy. If the serum creatinine (Cr) level decreased more than 50% or went back to the baseline level within 1-2 weeks, the treatment was considered effective. If not, ACR was further treated with OKT3 at 5–10 mg/d or ATG at 100–200 mg/d for 5–7 days. Response to therapy was determined by comparing the serum Cr level measured two weeks after completion of the antirejection treatment to the baseline serum Cr level measured before rejection [25]. Response was considered complete if a decrease in serum Cr level was maximally 125% of baseline and partial if the Cr was 125%–175% of baseline, and it is no-response if Cr was still more than 175% of the baseline or graft loss (back to dialysis or nephrectomy).

2.2. Allograft Biopsy and Histopathology

Percutaneous ultrasound-guided renal biopsy was performed in recipients experiencing allograft dysfunction. Kidney allograft pathology diagnosis was made by an experienced renal pathologist (W. H.) according to the Banff 2005 criteria. We only included ACR grade I and grade II. ACR grade III and antibody-mediated rejection were excluded. Vascular rejection refers to the existence of intimal arteritis in the ACR sample, that is, grades IIA, IIB, IIA + IA, IIA + IB, IIB + IA, and IIB + IB, according to the Banff 2005 criteria.

Immunohistochemical staining for CD20 and C4d was routinely performed on paraffin sections using the CD20 monoclonal antibody from Zhongshan (Cat number ZA0549, Beijing, China) and the C4d polyclonal antibody from Abcam (Cat number ab36075, Cambridge, UK). Using the same definition as those of Hippen et al., CD20-positive was defined as strong and diffuse staining characteristics, while trace or rare CD20-positivity was assigned to CD20-negative [6]. The CD20-positive specimens were further assessed independently by two authors (W. R. and W. H.) and defined as mild-positive if CD20-positive cells accounted for less than 25% of the inflammatory cells, moderate-positive if CD20-positive cells were 26%–49% of the inflammatory cells, and severe-positive if CD20-positive cells were more than 50% of the inflammatory cells. Representative images are shown in Figure 1. All the patients included in this study were negative for C4d staining.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (range). Categorical variables are presented as numbers (frequencies). Normally distributed continuous variables were analyzed using student’s -test or one-way ANOVA, and nonnormally distributed continuous variables were analyzed using Mann–Whitney test. Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Graft/patient survival was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method and differences between survival curves were calculated by the log-rank test. Factors associated with graft loss on the univariate analysis with were included into a Cox multivariate analysis. All statistical calculations used SPSS 19.0. Two sided was considered as significant difference.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

The baseline characteristics of the patients were listed in Table 2. Eighty-three patients were assigned to the CD20-negative group, and 133 patients were classified as CD20-positive. No significant differences in age, gender, cold/warm ischemia time, donor type, primary disease, induction regimen, and prerejection immunosuppressive drugs were observed between these two groups. ACR was diagnosed earlier after kidney transplantation in the CD20-negative group compared with CD20-positive group (median time to ACR, 29 days versus 142 days, ). As presented in Table 1, the pathologic types differed in two groups (). There was significantly more vascular rejection (IIA, IIB, IIA + IA, IIA + IB, IIB + IA, and IIB + IB) in the CD20-negative group (50/83 patients, 60.2%), compared with the CD20-positive group (55/133 patients, 41.4%) ().


CharacteristicsCD20-negative
()
CD20-positive
()
value

Sex (male/female)54/2994/390.387
Age at transplantation (years)0.332
Warm ischemia time (min)0.657
Cold ischemia time (min)0.792
Donor type0.863
 Living17 (20.5%)26 (19.5%)
 Deceased66 (79.5%)107 (80.1%)
Primary disease0.445
 Chronic nephritis75 (90.4%)119 (89.5%)
 AKPD6 (7.2%)5 (3.8%)
 Diabetic nephropathy0 (0)2 (1.5%)
 Gouty nephropathy0 (0)2 (1.5%)
 Hereditary nephropathy0 (0)2 (1.5%)
 Others2 (2.4%)3 (2.2%)
Number of HLA mismatches0.468
Induction regimen0.498
 CD25 monoclonal antibody35 (42.2%)46 (34.6%)
 ATG/OKT34 (4.8%)9 (6.8%)
 None44 (53.0%)78 (58.6%)
PRA > 10% – number (%)
 After transplant4 (4.8%)2 (1.5%)0.149
 At rejection3 (3.6%)5 (3.8%)0.956
Prerejection immunosuppressant arms0.230
 FK506 + MMF +Pred53 (63.9%)76 (57.1%)
 CSA + MMF + Pred27 (32.5%)53 (39.8%)
 Rapamycin + MMF + Pred1 (1.2%)2 (1.5%)
 CSA + rapamycin + Pred2 (2.4%)0
 CSA + AZA + Pred0 (0)2 (1.5%)
Median days to ACR (range) (days)29 (3–3878)142 (3–3398)0.016

PRA, panel reactive antibody; AZA, azathioprine; CSA, cyclosporine; FK506, tacrolimus; MMF, mycophenolate mofetil; PRED, prednisone.
3.2. Antirejection Therapy

In general, CD20-negative patients presented with higher prerejection serum Cr levels, compared with the CD20-positive group ( versus μmol/L, ). The same results were obtained with peak Cr at rejection ( versus μmol/L, ). No significant differences were observed at any other time point during follow-up (Table 3). Corresponding to this, worse GFR was observed in the CD20-negative group before rejection ( versus  mL/min, ), and the same results were obtained at the time of rejection ( versus  mL/min, ). No significant differences between CD20-positive and CD20-negative groups were observed at any other time point during follow-up (Table 4).


CD20-negativeCD20-positiveP value

Before rejection (83) (133)0.002
Peak (83) (133)0.027
After biopsy
 1 month (80) (132)0.313
 3 months (62) (113)0.293
 6 months (63) (125)0.121
 12 months (64) (110)0.101
 24 months (58) (91)0.742
 36 months (38) (69)0.173
 48 months (26) (52)0.734
 60 months (23) (47)0.788


CD20-negativeCD20-positive value

Rerejection<0.001
Peak0.005
After Biopsy
 1 month0.070
 3 months0.641
 6 months0.224
 12 months0.804
 24 months0.502
 36 months0.123
 48 months0.212
 60 months0.428

Patients in the CD20-positive and CD20-negative groups received similar maintenance immunosuppressive regimen after rejection (Table 5). After ACR, significantly more CD20-negative patients (49/83, 59.0%) received steroid plus antibody therapy (defined as steroid-resistant rejection) compared with the CD20-positive group (52/133, 39.1%) (). The response to treatment for ACR did not differ between these two groups.


CD20-negativeCD20-positiveP value
()()

Postrejection immunosuppressant arms0.898
 FK506 + MMF + Pred69 (83.1%)113 (85.0%)
 CSA + MMF + Pred13 (15.7%)18 (13.5%)
 Rapamycin + MMF + Pred1 (1.2%)2 (1.5%)
Antirejection therapy0.004
 Steroids34 (41.0%)81 (60.9%)
 Steroids + antibody49 (59.0%)52 (39.1%)
Response to treatment0.232
 Complete55 (66.2%)86 (64.7%)
 partial11 (13.3%)28 (21.0%)
 No response17 (20.5%)19 (14.3%)

3.3. CD20 Staining and Patient/Graft Survival Rates

More patients in the CD20-negative group (27/83, 32.5%) experienced graft loss compared with the CD20-positive group (25/133, 18.8%), which reached a significant difference (). Figure 2(a) displayed the graft survival over time analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier death-censored method for CD20-positive and CD20-negative groups. CD20-positive infiltration was associated with significantly better allograft survival (). There was no significant difference in the patient survival rate between these two groups.

3.4. Association of the Degree of CD20 Infiltration and Patient/Graft Survival

We further divided the CD20-positive group into CD20 mild-positive subgroup (), CD20 moderate-positive subgroup (), and CD20 severe-positive subgroup () according to the percentage of CD20-positive B cells found in the inflammatory cell population. Figure 3(a) showed that the CD20 severe-positive subgroup tended to have better graft survival compared to the other three groups, but this difference was not significant. Patient survival was similar among these four groups (Figure 3(b)).

3.5. Predictor of Graft Loss in a Cox Proportional-Hazards Model

Univariate analysis showed that the CD20-positive infiltration, prerejection immunosuppressive regimen, antirejection therapy, and antirejection response were the factors influencing renal allograft loss. Further multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that CD20 infiltration was a protective factor for graft loss. Antirejection therapy is another independent risk factor. The adjusted risk ratio of graft loss for steroid plus antibody treatment was 2.316 compared with steroid alone. Compared with the complete response, the adjusted risk ratio of graft loss was 2.538 for partial-response and 13.847 for no-response, as exhibited in Table 6. The prerejection immunosuppressive regimen, which was significant in the univariate analysis, did not reach significance in the multivariate analysis.


UnivariateMultivariate
RR95% CIRR95% CI

CD20-positive infiltrates0.5060.293–0.8720.0140.5700.327–0.9950.048
Prerejection immunosuppressive regimen0.3920.221–0.6960.0010.6210.356–1.0830.093
Antirejection therapy (combination versus MMP)3.1421.724–5.728<0.0013.3161.677–5.958<0.001
Response to treatment<0.001<0.001
 Partial versus complete response2.6131.129–6.0480.0252.5381.078–5.9740.033
 No-response versus complete response13.4107.032–25.570<0.00113.8477.018–27.321<0.001

RR, relative risk; CI, confidence interval.

4. Discussion

Our study demonstrated that CD20-positive infiltration in the biopsy specimens from the allografts with ACR was associated with less steroid-resistant rejection and better allograft survival. Further exploration of the infiltration degree suggested that it tended to be positively related with graft survival, but without statistical significance. Multivariate Cox regression revealed that CD20-positive infiltration, antirejection therapy, and antirejection response were independent predictors of graft loss. The presence of CD20-positive B cells was a protective factor for graft loss.

B cells are very common in solid organ transplantation. B cells and plasma cells in pathological tissues have been considered as nonspecific effector cells in the past [26, 27]. In 2003, Sarwal et al. first demonstrated the presence of CD20-positive B cells in the graft interstitium of pediatric transplant recipients experiencing ACR [7]. Their study suggested that CD20-positive infiltration was associated with steroid-resistant rejection and worse graft survival. Since then, the role of CD20-positive B cells in ACR has attracted more attention. In adult kidney transplantation, 22% of acute rejection (IA, IB) specimens had CD20-positive infiltration, and it was associated with worse outcome [6]. A mouse model of acute cardiac allograft rejection demonstrated that recipients’ B cells participate in indirect alloantigen presentation and play an important role in the progression of acute vascular rejection [28]. Studies analyzing the CD20-positive B cells’ infiltration pattern in adult kidney transplantation reported higher serum Cr levels in recipients with clusters of B cells [29]. Some studies have suggested that once recruited into injured grafts, B cells can act as antigen-presenting cells to promote T cell mediated rejection, which is resistant to conventional steroid therapy [30].

Different result was observed, suggesting that the early infiltration of B cells can be beneficial [23, 31]. Scheepstra et al. performed immunostaining for CD20 on 54 biopsy-proven ACR samples, and no correlation was found between the number of CD20 cells, in clusters or in a scattered pattern, and clinical outcome [23]. Increased peripheral blood B cells were detected in the steady recipients [32], instead of those experiencing rejection. CD20 transcription was found to be increased in tolerant kidney transplant recipients [3335]. Kayler et al. suggested that B cells were not indicators of graft loss or steroid resistance in their analysis of 120 ACR biopsies [36]. This result was proved by other studies [37].

Thus, the role of CD20-positive B lymphocytes in acute cellular rejection is controversial. One of the possible explanations for this is the lack of a unified standard on the definition of CD20-positive and CD20-negative. Sarwal and her colleagues defined CD20-positive as more than 275 CD20-positive cells in a single high power field (HPF) and came to the conclusion that CD20-positive cells were strongly associated with severe graft rejection [7]. Hippen et al. used a qualitative method in their research and defined biopsies with strong and diffuse staining characteristics of CD20-positive cells as the CD20-positive group, while trace or rare CD20-positive cells were recognized as the CD20-negative group [6]. Their research indicated that CD20-positive infiltration was more likely to have steroid-resistant rejection and worse graft survival. In Bagnasco’s research, CD20-positive patients (at least one cluster containing more than 100/HPF CD20-positive cells) and CD20-negative patients (the count was below 50/HPF) were compared [37]. No association was found between CD20-positive infiltrates and worse graft outcome using this method. CD20-positive lymphoid clusters, which were defined as any dense cluster of lymphoid cells containing more than 15 CD20-positive B cells by Kayler et al., did not predict steroid resistance or worse graft survival [36].

The definition of CD20-positive and CD20-negative in our study is in line with Hippen et al.’s research. However, our study’s findings that CD20-positive infiltration is associated with better clinical outcomes are not consistent with Hippen et al.’s results [6]. Differences exist between our two studies. First, our study included a larger number of ACR biopsies than any published studies so far. A total of 216 cases of biopsy-proven ACR were included in our analysis; 83 samples were assigned to the CD20-negative group, and 133 were classified as CD20-positive. Hippen et al.’s study cohort contained 27 patients and only 6 biopsies were classified as CD20-positive. As mentioned in the discussion by the authors, the relative small sample sizes in their analysis may limit the generalization of their conclusions. Secondly, Hippen et al.’s research was conducted in biopsies with proven Banff IA or IB rejection within the first year after transplantation. Our study included patients with ACR grade I and grade II at any time point after kidney transplantation. The differences in the inclusion criteria of study population may contribute to the different results. Similarly, Scheepstra et al. [23] adopted the same method to assess CD20-positive as mentioned in Sarwal et al.’s work [7], but they reported different results. Thus, besides the lack of a uniformed definition of CD20-positive and CD20-negative, a relatively small sample size, different study populations (pediatrics versus adults; different subgroups of ACR), differences in the induction and maintenance immunosuppression therapy, different follow-up durations, and other factors can contribute to the inconsistency in the studies concerning the role of CD20-positive infiltration in ACR.

The prognostic study of CD20-positive cells in ACR helps to select future treatment, in particular, whether or not to apply B-cell-depleting agents in steroid-resistant rejection. Rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, was first applied in the treatment of lymphoma. It has been proven effective in treatment of a number of hematological diseases and autoimmune diseases [3840]. In the aspect of transplantation, rituximab has been used for desensitization of panel reactive antibody, anti-HLA antibody, and anti-ABO antibody before transplantation as induction regimen and treatment of humoral rejection after transplantation [4147]. In 2002, a cardiac transplant patient with vascular rejection refractory to plasmapheresis was successfully treated with rituximab, which was the first documented application of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in the aspect of rejection [48]. Later, other case reports confirmed that CD20 monoclonal antibody was effective in the treatment of vascular rejection in heart and pancreas transplantation [4951]. At present, rituximab is applied to treat steroid-resistant rejection after renal transplantation. It can clear DSA and B cells to improve outcomes after renal allograft rejection [52]. After treatment, the reconstruction of peripheral B cells requires 6 to 9 months. The CD20-positive B cells in graft are significantly reduced after treatment, but the studies of the reconstruction of B cells in grafts are rather rare [53]. Our results showed that CD20-positive infiltration in patients with ACR appeared to have a protective effect on graft outcome. Additionally, a clinical trial which planned to use rituximab in nonsensitive kidney transplant recipients was forced to stop because of increases in rejection [24]. Thus, the administration of anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody in patients with ACR requires careful consideration.

5. Conclusion

CD20-positive B cell infiltration in renal allograft biopsies with ACR is associated with less steroid-resistant rejection and better graft survival. The presence of CD20-positive B cells is protective for renal allografts.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Authors’ Contributions

Yan Jiang and Rending Wang contribute equally to this paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Grants from Zhejiang Science and Technology Department 2012C13G2010133; Health and Family Planning Commission of Zhejiang province 2013KYB115; and National Natural Science Foundation of China 81370851.

References

  1. H.-U. Meier-Kriesche, A. O. Ojo, J. A. Hanson et al., “Increased impact of acute rejection on chronic allograft failure in recent era,” Transplantation, vol. 70, no. 7, pp. 1098–1100, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  2. K. Solez, R. B. Colvin, L. C. Racusen et al., “Banff '05 meeting report: differential diagnosis of chronic allograft injury and elimination of chronic allograft nephropathy ('CAN'),” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 518–526, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  3. M. D. Pescovitz, “B cells: a rational target in alloantibody-mediated solid organ transplantation rejection,” Clinical Transplantation, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 48–54, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. J. Wu, J. Chen, Y. Wang et al., “Impact of acute rejection episodes on long-term renal allograft survival,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 116, no. 11, pp. 1741–1745, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  5. J.-H. Chen, R.-D. Wang, J.-Y. Wu et al., “[The influence of early vascular rejection on late rejection in first cadaveric renal transplantation],” National Medical Journal of China, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 332–334, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  6. B. E. Hippen, A. DeMattos, W. J. Cook, C. E. Kew II, and R. S. Gaston, “Association of CD20+ infiltrates with poorer clinical outcomes in acute cellular rejection of renal allografts,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 2248–2252, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. M. Sarwal, M.-S. Chua, N. Kambham et al., “Molecular heterogeneity in acute renal allograft rejection identified by DNA microarray profiling,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 349, no. 2, pp. 125–138, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. E. W. Tsai, P. Rianthavorn, D. W. Gjertson, W. D. Wallace, E. F. Reed, and R. B. Ettenger, “CD20+ lymphocytes in renal allografts are associated with poor graft survival in pediatric patients,” Transplantation, vol. 82, no. 12, pp. 1769–1773, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. P. I. Terasaki and J. Cai, “Humoral theory of transplantation: further evidence,” Current Opinion in Immunology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 541–545, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. V. Gärtner, T. K. Eigentler, and R. Viebahn, “Plasma cell-rich rejection processes in renal transplantation: morphology and prognostic relevance,” Transplantation, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 986–991, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. V. Nickeleit and K. Andreoni, “The classification and treatment of antibody-mediated renal allograft injury: where do we stand?” Kidney International, vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 7–11, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  12. H. Nomi, J. Tashiro-Yamaji, Y. Yamamoto et al., “Acute rejection of allografted CTL-susceptible leukemia cells from perforin/Fas ligand double-deficient mice,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 179, no. 4, pp. 2180–2186, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  13. P. J. Matheson, I. D. Dittmer, B. W. Beaumont, M. J. Merrilees, and H. L. Pilmore, “The macrophage is the predominant inflammatory cell in renal allograft intimal arteritis,” Transplantation, vol. 79, no. 12, pp. 1658–1662, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. A. D. Kirk, D. A. Hale, R. B. Mannon et al., “Results from a human renal allograft tolerance trial evaluating the humanized CD52-specific monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab (Campath-1H),” Transplantation, vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 120–129, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  15. K. R. Wyburn, M. D. Jose, H. Wu, R. C. Atkins, and S. J. Chadban, “The role of macrophages in allograft rejection,” Transplantation, vol. 80, no. 12, pp. 1641–1647, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. E. J. Barnes, M. M. Abdel-Rehim, Y. Goulis et al., “Applications and limitations of blood eosinophilia for the diagnosis of acute cellular rejection in liver transplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 432–438, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  17. M. Surquin, A. Le Moine, V. Flamand et al., “IL-4 deficiency prevents eosinophilic rejection and uncovers a role for neutrophils in the rejection of MHC class II disparate skin grafts,” Transplantation, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 1485–1492, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  18. T. Wu, G. Bond, D. Martin, M. A. Nalesnik, A. J. Demetris, and K. Abu-Elmagd, “Histopathologic characteristics of human intestine allograft acute rejection in patients pretreated with thymoglobulin or alemtuzumab,” The American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 101, no. 7, pp. 1617–1624, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  19. W. H. Kitchens, S. Uehara, C. M. Chase, R. B. Colvin, P. S. Russell, and J. C. Madsen, “The changing role of natural killer cells in solid organ rejection and tolerance,” Transplantation, vol. 81, no. 6, pp. 811–817, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  20. A. Lehnhardt, M. Mengel, L. Pape, J. H. H. Ehrich, G. Offner, and J. Strehlau, “Nodular B-cell aggregates associated with treatment refractory renal transplant rejection resolved by rituximab,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 847–851, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  21. M. Alausa, U. Almagro, N. Siddiqi, R. Zuiderweg, R. Medipalli, and S. Hariharan, “Refractory acute kidney transplant rejection with CD20 graft infiltrates and successful therapy with rituximab,” Clinical Transplantation, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 137–140, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  22. C. C. Nast, A. Moudgil, X.-J. Zuo, A. Wilkinson, G. M. Danovitch, and S. C. Jordan, “Cyclosporine microemulsion- and mycophenolate mofetil-related lymphoid aggregates are not associated with acute rejection,” Transplantation, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 251–256, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  23. C. Scheepstra, F. J. Bemelman, C. Van Der Loos et al., “B cells in cluster or in a scattered pattern do not correlate with clinical outcome of renal allograft rejection,” Transplantation, vol. 86, no. 6, pp. 772–778, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. M. R. Clatworthy, C. J. E. Watson, G. Plotnek et al., “B-cell-depleting induction therapy and acute cellular rejection,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 360, no. 25, pp. 2683–2685, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  25. L. W. Gaber, L. W. Moore, R. R. Alloway et al., “Correlation between Banff classification, acute renal rejection scores and reversal of rejection,” Kidney International, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 481–487, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. L. C. Racusen, K. Solez, and S. Olsen, “Pathology of kidney transplantation,” in Kidney Transplant Rejection-Diagnosis and Treatment, L. C. Racusen, K. Solez, and J. F. Burdick, Eds., p. 383, Dekker, New York, NY, USA, 3rd edition, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  27. R. B. Colvin, “The renal allograft biopsy,” Kidney International, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1069–1082, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  28. H. Noorchashm, A. J. Reed, S. Y. Rostami et al., “B cell-mediated antigen presentation is required for the pathogenesis of acute cardiac allograft rejection,” Journal of Immunology, vol. 177, no. 11, pp. 7715–7722, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  29. H. L. Martins, C. Silva, D. Martini, and I. L. Noronha, “Detection of B lymphocytes (CD20+) in renal allograft biopsy specimens,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 432–434, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  30. V. Zarkhin, L. Li, and M. Sarwal, “‘To B or not to B?’ B-cells and graft rejection,” Transplantation, vol. 85, no. 12, pp. 1705–1714, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  31. O. Viklicky, P. Hribova, H.-D. Volk et al., “Molecular phenotypes of acute rejection predict kidney graft prognosis,” Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 173–180, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  32. P. Sagoo, E. Perucha, B. Sawitzki et al., “Development of a cross-platform biomarker signature to detect renal transplant tolerance in humans,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 1848–1861, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  33. K. A. Newell, A. Asare, A. D. Kirk et al., “Identification of a B cell signature associated with renal transplant tolerance in humans,” Journal of Clinical Investigation, vol. 120, no. 6, pp. 1836–1847, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  34. S. Brouard, E. Mansfield, C. Braud et al., “Identification of a peripheral blood transcriptional biomarker panel associated with operational renal allograft tolerance,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 104, no. 39, pp. 15448–15453, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  35. O. Thaunat, N. Patey, C. Gautreau et al., “B cell survival in intragraft tertiary lymphoid organs after rituximab therapy,” Transplantation, vol. 85, no. 11, pp. 1648–1653, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  36. L. K. Kayler, F. G. Lakkis, C. Morgan et al., “Acute cellular rejection with CD20-positive lymphoid clusters in kidney transplant patients following lymphocyte depletion,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 949–954, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  37. S. M. Bagnasco, W. Tsai, M. H. Rahman et al., “CD20-positive infiltrates in renal allograft biopsies with acute cellular rejection are not associated with worse graft survival,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 1968–1973, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  38. P. Brændstrup, O. W. Bjerrum, O. J. Nielsen et al., “Rituximab chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment for adult refractory idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura,” American Journal of Hematology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 275–280, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  39. P. P. Tak and J. R. Kalden, “Advances in rheumatology: new targeted therapeutics,” Arthritis Research and Therapy, vol. 13, no. 1, article S5, 2011. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  40. T. D. Shanafelt, H. L. Madueme, R. C. Wolf, and A. Tefferi, “Rituximab for immune cytopenia in adults: idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, autoimmune hemolytic anemia, and evans syndrome,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 1340–1346, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. R. A. Sidner, B. K. Book, A. Agarwal, C. M. Bearden, C. A. Vieira, and M. D. Pescovitz, “In vivo human B-cell subset recovery after in vivo depletion with rituximab, anti-human CD20 monoclonal antibody,” Human Antibodies, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 55–62, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  42. C. J. Sonnenday, D. S. Warren, M. Cooper et al., “Plasmapheresis, CMV hyperimmune globulin, and anti-CD20 allow ABO-incompatible renal transplantation without splenectomy,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 1315–1322, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. G. Tydén, G. Kumlien, H. Genberg, J. Sandberg, T. Lundgren, and I. Fehrman, “ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation and rituximab,” Transplantation Proceedings, vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 3286–3287, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  44. G. Tydén, G. Kumlien, and I. Fehrman, “Successful ABO-incompatible kidney transplantations without splenectomy using antigen-specific immunoadsorption and rituximab,” Transplantation, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 730–731, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  45. P. Ravichandran, T. Natrajan, and R. Jaganathan, “Combination treatment of low dose Anti-Thymocyte Globulin (ATG), Rituximab and high dose Sirolimus as induction agents in immune-conditioned recipients,” International Immunopharmacology, vol. 6, no. 13-14, pp. 1973–1976, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  46. I. C. Balfour, A. Fiore, R. J. Graff, and A. P. Knutsen, “Use of rituximab to decrease panel-reactive antibodies,” Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 628–630, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. Y. Yamada, K. Hoshino, Y. Morikawa et al., “Successful liver transplantation across the ABO incompatibility barrier in 6 cases of biliary atresia,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1976–1979, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  48. J. M. Aranda Jr., J. C. Scornik, S. J. Normann et al., “Anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody (rituximab) therapy for acute cardiac humoral rejection: a case report,” Transplantation, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 907–910, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  49. H. E. Garrett Jr., K. Groshart, D. Duvall-Seaman, D. Combs, and R. Suggs, “Treatment of humoral rejection with rituximab,” Annals of Thoracic Surgery, vol. 74, no. 4, pp. 1240–1242, 2002. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  50. H. E. Garrett Jr., D. Duvall-Seaman, B. Helsley, and K. Groshart, “Treatment of vascular rejection with rituximab in cardiac transplantation,” Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1337–1342, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  51. I. Kaczmarek, M.-A. Deutsch, S. Sadoni et al., “Successful management of antibody-mediated cardiac allograft rejection with combined immunoadsorption and anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody treatment: case report and literature review,” Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 511–515, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  52. S. Faguer, N. Kamar, C. Guilbeaud-Frugier et al., “Rituximab therapy for acute humoral rejection after kidney transplantation,” Transplantation, vol. 83, no. 9, pp. 1277–1280, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  53. H. Genberg, A. Hansson, A. Wernerson, L. Wennberg, and G. Tydén, “Pharmacodynamics of rituximab in kidney allotransplantation,” American Journal of Transplantation, vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 2418–2428, 2006. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright © 2016 Yan Jiang 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.


More related articles

1066 Views | 317 Downloads | 1 Citation
 PDF  Download Citation  Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

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 help@hindawi.com 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. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.