中国P站

Transplant rejection; Acute rejection; Chronic rejection; Biomarkers; Precision transplantation; Donor-specific antibodies; T-cell mediated rejection; Antibody-mediated rejection; Molecular diagnostics; Gene expression profiling; Donor-derived cell-free DNA; Immunosuppression monitoring; Non-invasive testing; Immune surveillance; Allograft injury; Rejection risk stratification.

Introduction

Organ transplantation has revolutionized the treatment of end-stage organ failure, but its long-term success remains threatened by immune-mediated rejection. Both acute rejection (AR) and chronic rejection (CR) are major causes of graft dysfunction and loss, with significant implications for patient morbidity and healthcare costs. Acute rejection is typically characterized by a rapid immune response that can often be managed with intensified immunosuppressive therapy, while chronic rejection develops gradually, leading to irreversible graft damage and fibrosis. Early diagnosis and targeted management are crucial to improving outcomes, yet current surveillance relies heavily on functional markers such as serum creatinine, which are often nonspecific and lag behind actual graft injury. Recent advances in biomarker discovery and molecular diagnostics offer a new path toward precision transplantation, where individualized risk assessment and targeted therapies are guided by specific biological indicators of rejection [1-5].

Description

Rejection is broadly categorized into T-cell mediated rejection (TCMR) and antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). TCMR is driven by alloreactive T lymphocytes that recognize donor antigens and induce cytotoxic and inflammatory responses, while AMR involves the formation of donor-specific antibodies (DSAs) that target the allograft vasculature, leading to inflammation, complement activation, and tissue injury. Historically, diagnosis of rejection has relied on invasive biopsies and histopathologic grading, which, while considered the gold standard, carry risks and may not detect early or subclinical rejection.

The need for more sensitive, specific, and non-invasive biomarkers has led to significant research in areas such as gene expression profiling, donor-derived cell-free DNA (dd-cfDNA), and proteomic and metabolomic signatures. Gene expression tests, like the AlloMap in heart transplantation or molecular microscope diagnostic systems in kidney transplants, evaluate the expression of immune-related genes in blood or biopsy samples, providing insights into underlying immune activity. dd-cfDNA, released into circulation during allograft injury, offers a non-invasive tool for detecting active rejection before clinical signs emerge. Elevated levels of dd-cfDNA correlate with both TCMR and AMR and are now being integrated into routine monitoring algorithms in several centers [6-10].

Discussion

The integration of biomarkers into clinical practice is transforming transplant monitoring from a reactive to a proactive discipline. In particular, multi-parametric approaches that combine dd-cfDNA, DSA levels, and immune cell profiling offer improved sensitivity and specificity in detecting allograft injury. These biomarkers enable risk stratification, helping clinicians tailor immunosuppressive regimens to the individual patient’s immunological risk. For instance, a low-risk patient with stable biomarkers may be a candidate for immunosuppression minimization, reducing the burden of drug toxicity. Conversely, elevated biomarkers in an otherwise asymptomatic patient may prompt early intervention, potentially preventing irreversible injury.

Chronic rejection, particularly in organs like the lung (bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome) and kidney (interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy), remains a more elusive target for biomarkers. However, studies are exploring fibrosis-related gene expression panels, tissue-specific microRNAs, and metabolic signatures that reflect chronic injury and immune activation. In parallel, novel therapeutic strategies are being developed, including B-cell targeted therapies, complement inhibitors, and tolerance-inducing agents, which may be guided and monitored using biomarker feedback loops.

Despite these advances, challenges remain in the standardization, validation, and clinical implementation of biomarker-based monitoring. Variability in assay performance, lack of universal thresholds, and differences in patient populations complicate the interpretation of results. Furthermore, there is a need for longitudinal studies to establish the predictive value of biomarkers and their utility in guiding therapeutic decisions. The cost-effectiveness and accessibility of these technologies must also be considered, particularly in resource-limited settings.

The concept of precision transplantation—where immune surveillance, risk prediction, and therapy are individualized based on biomarker data—represents a significant shift in transplant medicine. It requires robust data integration, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and the use of digital health tools and machine learning to interpret complex datasets. Additionally, ethical considerations related to data privacy, over-reliance on algorithms, and equitable access must be addressed to ensure that all patients benefit from these innovations.

Conclusion

Biomarkers are reshaping the landscape of transplant rejection management, moving the field toward a future of precision-guided, patient-centered care. Through early detection, better differentiation of rejection subtypes, and improved treatment monitoring, biomarkers empower clinicians to act preemptively, potentially preserving graft function and improving survival. While significant progress has been made, continued investment in translational research, validation studies, and real-world implementation is necessary. By combining cutting-edge science with personalized care approaches, the next generation of transplant medicine will be defined not just by graft longevity, but by the ability to tailor treatment to each recipient’s unique immunologic profile.

References

1. Delgado JF, Reyne AG, de Dios S, López-Medrano F, Jurado A, et al. (2015) . J Heart Lung Transplant 3:1112-1119.

   , ,

2. Raffa GM, Di Gesaro G, Sciacca S, Tuzzolino F, Turrisi M, et al. (2016) . Int J Cardiol 219: 358-361.

   , ,

3. Zieli艅ska K, Kukulski L, Wróbel M, Przyby艂owski P, Rokicka D, et al. (2022) Ann Transplant 27: 933420.

   , ,

4. Conway J, Manlhiot C, Kirk R, Edwards LB, McCrindle BW, et al. J Heart Lung Transplant 33: 241-251.

   , ,

5. R D Vanderlaan, C Manlhiot, L B Edwards, J Conway, B W McCrindle, et al. (2015) . Pediatr Transplant 19: 896-905.

   , ,

6. Kitamura S (2012) . Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 60: 639-644.

   , ,

7. Wever-Pinzon O, Edwards LB, Taylor DO, Kfoury AG, Drakos SG, et al. (2017) . J Heart Lung Transplant 36: 407-417.

   , ,

8. Saczkowski R, Dacey C, Bernier PL (2010) . Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10: 1026-1033.

   , ,

9. Jeewa A, Manlhiot C, Kantor PF, Mital S, McCrindle BW, et al. (2014) . J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147: 462-468.

   , ,

10. Sivathasan C, Lim CP, Kerk KL, Sim DK, Mehra MR, et al. (2017) . J Heart Lung Transplant 36: 13-18.

    , ,