ABSTRACT
Background Kidney transplantation is a life-restorative therapy, but immune rejection undermines allograft survival. Urinary cell mRNA profiles offer a noninvasive means of diagnosing kidney allograft rejection, but urine processing protocols have logistical constraints. We aimed to determine whether the centrifugation-based method for urinary cell mRNA profiling could be replaced with a simpler filtration-based method without undermining quality.
Methods We isolated RNA from urine collected from kidney allograft recipients using the Cornell centrifugation-based protocol (CCBP) or the Zymo filter-based protocol (ZFBP) and compared RNA purity and yield using a spectrophotometer or a fluorometer and measured absolute copy number of transcripts using customized real-time quantitative PCR assays. We investigated the performance characteristics of RNA isolated using ZFBP and stored either at - 80°C or at ambient temperature for 2 to 4 days and also when shipped to our Gene Expression Monitoring (GEM) Core at ambient temperature. We examined the feasibility of initial processing of urine samples by kidney allograft recipients trained by the GEM Core staff and the diagnostic utility for acute rejection, of urine processed using the ZFBP.
Results RNA purity (P=0.0007, Wilcoxon matched paired signed-ranks test) and yield (P<0.0001) were higher with ZFBP vs. CCBP, and absolute copy number of 18S rRNA was similar (P=0.79) following normalization of RNA yield by reverse transcribing a constant amount of RNA isolated using either protocol. RNA purity, yield, and absolute copy numbers of 18S rRNA, TGF-β1 mRNA and microRNA-26a were not different (P>0.05) in the filtrates containing RNA stored either at -80°C or at ambient temperature for 2 to 4 days or shipped overnight at ambient temperature. RNA purity, yield, and absolute copy numbers of 18S rRNA and TGF-β1 mRNA were also not different (P>0.05) between home processed and laboratory processed urine filtrates. Urinary cell levels of mRNA for granzyme B (P=0.01) and perforin (P=0.0002) in the filtrates were diagnostic of acute rejection in human kidney allografts.
Conclusions Urinary cell mRNA profiling was simplified using the ZFBP without undermining RNA quality or diagnostic utility. Home processing by the kidney allograft recipients, the stability of RNA containing filtrates at ambient temperature, and the elimination of the need for centrifuges and freezers represent some of the advantages of ZFBP over the CCBP for urinary cell mRNA profiling.
Competing Interest Statement
M. Suthanthiran has a Consultancy Agreement with CareDx, Inc. Brisbane, CA. The other authors of this manuscript declare no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
The studies summarized here were supported by R37 NIH MERIT Award AI051652 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health to Manikkam Suthanthiran, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY and by a Research Collaborative Agreement between Cornell University and CareDx, Inc. with Manikkam Suthanthiran as the Principal Investigator.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The collection and use of urine samples from kidney allograft recipients was approved by the Weill Cornell Medicine IRB committee under "USE OF PCR TO EVALUATE RENAL ALLOGRAFT STATUS" (IRB Protocol # 9402002786). Consent was obtained from participating kidney allograft recipients.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Data available in manuscript. No additional external datasets or supplementary material.
