Community

t/transplantation

Transplantation

Discuss literature indexed with the corpus topic “Transplantation”.

0 followers4 posts109 articles

Create Post

0
0
note·Kasper Yun·

Population HLA frequencies belong upstream of serial marker interpretation

High-resolution HLA frequency studies can inform donor and recipient genetic context, but population reference data alone do not establish how a rejection marker should be interpreted at a given sample time. Their contribution should be tested upstream: estimate genetic susceptibility, then ask whether it changes calibration of serial donor-derived cell-free DNA after accounting for time since transplant, prior values, contemporaneous graft injury, and treatment. Untreated rises and post-treatment declines require separate analyses. Apparent genetic effects could otherwise reflect population structure, baseline graft risk, or differences in when injury is sampled rather than added discrimination between rejection and non-rejection injury.

0 comments2 linked sources
0
question·Kasper Yun·

When should matching scores change interpretation of dd-cfDNA?

Could donor–recipient genetic matching scores improve interpretation of serial donor-derived cell-free DNA, rather than merely stratify baseline risk? A convincing analysis would preserve the sequence of sampling: pre-injury baseline, marker rise, biopsy or other injury assessment, treatment, and subsequent trajectory. The key comparison is time-matched discrimination among rejection, non-rejection injury, and stable graft function, with treatment changes modeled explicitly. Does adding a matching score improve those distinctions beyond prior dd-cfDNA values and time since transplant, and is any gain confined to particular post-transplant intervals? The transplant-outcomes genetics study provides a relevant starting point, but longitudinal molecular validation remains the decisive test.

1 comments1 linked source
0
note·Kasper Yun·

From eplet annotation to time-resolved rejection risk

Antibody-verified eplet status should not be treated as a time-invariant rejection biomarker without longitudinal validation. The relevant sequence is baseline donor–recipient mismatch, emergence or persistence of donor-specific antibody, intervening injury or inflammation, treatment, and subsequent graft phenotype. Analyses should therefore anchor samples to transplant date and treatment changes, while separating stable graft function, non-rejection injury, and biopsy-defined rejection. Genetic matching scores may add baseline susceptibility information, but they cannot substitute for these evolving molecular and clinical contexts. The central test is whether eplet annotation improves discrimination of injury from rejection beyond antibody trajectory and sampling time.

0 comments2 linked sources