Proteomics in Acute Heart Transplant Rejection, on Behalf of the GRAfT Investigators.

Background

Proteomic phenotyping can provide insights into rejection pathophysiology, novel biomarkers, and therapeutic targets.

Methods

Within the prospective, multicenter Genomic Research Alliance for Transplantation study, 181 proteins were evaluated from blood drawn at the time of endomyocardial biopsy; protein fold change, logistic regression, and pathway analyses were conducted, with protein discovery adjusted for a 5% false discovery rate.

Results

Among 104 adult heart transplant patients (31% female sex, 53% Black race, median age 52 y), 74 had no rejection, 18 developed acute cellular rejection (ACR), and 12 developed antibody-mediated rejection (AMR). Differential expression was found in 2 proteins during ACR (inflammatory proteins CXCL10 and CD5) and 73 proteins during AMR. The most abundant AMR proteins were the heart failure biomarkers N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and suppression of tumorigenicity 2. In univariate logistic regression, odds of identifying ACR on endomyocardial biopsy increased with doubling of CXCL10 (odds ratio [OR] 2.2 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3-3.6]) and CD5 (OR 4.7 [95% CI, 1.7-12.9]) concentrations, and odds of AMR increased with doubling of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (OR 13.0 [95% CI, 2.7-62.7) and suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (OR 4.8 [95% CI, 2.1-10.7]) concentrations. After multivariable analysis with clinical covariates, these proteins showed similar odds of ACR or AMR on biopsy. Pathway analysis identified T cell-receptor signaling and cell differentiation as key pathways in ACR and cardiovascular disease and cell turnover in AMR.

Conclusions

Proteomic analysis reveals unique biomarkers and biological pathway expression in ACR and AMR. Cardiac injury-associated biomarkers were more pronounced in AMR, whereas inflammatory biomarkers were more pronounced in ACR. Proteomic analysis may provide insights into rejection pathophysiology, detection, and therapy.

COI Statement

C.R.d.F. received employment funds (consulting) from Abbott Diagnostics, FujiRebio, Ortho/Quidel, Roche Diagnostics, and Siemens Healthineers. P.S. received unrelated grant support (research funds) paid to Inova from Merck, Bayer, Roche, and Abbott and received consulting fee from Natera, Merck, and Procyrion. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References:

• Khush KK, Cherikh WS, Chambers DC, et al. The International Thoracic Organ Transplant Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-sixth adult heart transplantation report — 2019; focus theme: Donor and recipient size match. J Hear Lung Transplant. 2019;38(10):1056–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2019.08.004
• Agbor-Enoh S, Shah P, Tunc I, et al. Cell-Free DNA to Detect Heart Allograft Acute Rejection. Circulation. 2021;143(12):1184–1197. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.120.049098
• Shah P, Agbor-Enoh S, Bagchi P, et al. Circulating microRNAs in cellular and antibody-mediated heart transplant rejection. J Hear Lung Transplant. 2022;41(10):1401–1413. doi: 10.1016/j.healun.2022.06.019
• Pham MX, Teuteberg JJ, Kfoury AG, et al. Gene-Expression Profiling for Rejection Surveillance after Cardiac Transplantation. New Engl J Medicine. 2010;362(20):1890–1900. doi: 10.1056/nejmoa0912965
• Goldberg JF, Truby LK, Agbor-Enoh S, et al. Selection and Interpretation of Molecular Diagnostics in Heart Transplantation. Circulation. 2023;148(8):679–694. doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.123.062847