Donor-specific (d-sp) interferon gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (d-sp ELISPOT) and Panel of reactive T-cell (PRT) ELISPOT assays have been developed to detect alloreactive memory T (Tmem) cells in order to estimate the risk of acute rejection after kidney transplantation. Adding IL15 to the PRT assay (PRT+IL15) may uncover the presence of pathogenic alloreactive CD28-Tmem. Face-to-face comparisons of these assays have not been done yet. We performed pre-transplant d-sp ELISPOT and PRT assays (±IL15, against six B-cell lines) in 168 consecutive kidney transplant recipients and evaluated the multivariable-adjusted associations with biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), de novo donor-specific antibodies (DSA), and eGFR decline over a 48-month follow-up period. D-sp ELISPOT was positive in 81 (48%) subjects, while 71 (42%) and 81 (48%) subjects displayed positive PRT and PRT+IL15, respectively. Their median [interquartile range] numerical test result was 23 [6-65], 18 [8-37], and 26 [10-45] spots/3x105 PBMCs, respectively. The number of PRT spots were weakly correlated with those of d-sp ELISPOT, but highly correlated with PRT+IL15 (rho = 0.96, P<0.001). d-sp ELISPOT, but not PRT (±IL15) was independently associated with BPAR (adjusted Odds Ratio of BPAR associated with d-sp ELISPOT positivity: 4.20 [95%CI: 1.06 to 21.73; P = 0.041]). Unlike d-sp ELISPOT, median PRT and PRT+IL15 were independently associated with higher Δ3-48month eGFR decline post-transplantation (for both assays, about -3mL/min/1.73m2 per one standard deviation unit increase in the spot number). Pre-transplant T-cell immune-monitoring using d-sp ELISPOT and PRT assays identifies kidney transplant candidates at high risk of BPAR and worse kidney allograft progression.

Background Chronic immunosuppression promotes nonmelanocytic squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) after kidney transplantation. Adaptive and innate immunity play a key role controlling tumor growth and are influenced by different immunosuppressive agents. We hypothesized that functional impairment of tumor-specific T cell responses due to calcineurin inhibitors (CNI) could contribute to SCC development, whereas conversion to mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTOR-i) could recover this protective immune response. Methods Peripheral tumor-specific T cell responses against main SCC-derived antigens using the IFN-&ggr; enzyme-linked immunospot assay and intratumor (IT) and circulating immune phenotypes (CD4 + T, CD8 + T, CD20 + B, CD56 + NK, FOXP3 + regulatory T [Treg] cells) were explored in a cross-sectional analysis in 59 kidney transplant patients with SCC on CNI (KT-CNI-SCC) or mTOR-i (KT-mTORi-SCC), 25 nontransplants developing SCC (NoKT-SCC) and 6 healthy controls. Moreover, 25 KT-CNI-SCC were switched to mTOR-i and evaluated after 12 months. Results Kidney transplant patients showed lower IT infiltrates and tumor-specific T cell responses than NoKT-SCC, and intratumoral and circulating FOXP3 + Treg cells were higher in KT-mTORi-SCC (P < 0.05). Tumor-specific T cell responses were significantly lower in KT-CNI-SCC than KT-mTORi-SCC and NoKT-SCC and predicted SCC relapses (area under the curve = 0.837; P < 0.05). One-year after mTOR-i conversion, a significant increase in FOXP3 + Treg cell numbers and tumor-specific T cell responses were observed, reaching similar levels than KT-mTORi-SCC and NoKT-SCC patients. Conclusions Tumor-specific T cell responses are strongly impaired in CNI-treated patients but recover after mTOR-i conversion, reducing SCC relapses.

Background. Subclinical acute rejection (sc-AR) is a main cause for functional decline and kidney graft loss and may only be assessed through surveillance biopsies. Methods. The predictive capacity of 2 novel noninvasive blood biomarkers, the transcriptional kidney Solid Organ Response Test (kSORT), and the IFN-gamma enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot assay (ELISPOT) assay were assessed in the Evaluation of Sub-Clinical Acute rejection PrEdiction (ESCAPE) Study in 75 consecutive kidney transplants who received 6-month protocol biopsies. Both assays were run individually and in combination to optimize the use of these techniques to predict sc-AR risk. Results. Subclinical acute rejection was observed in 22 (29.3%) patients (17 T cell-mediated subclinical rejection [sc-TCMR], 5 antibody-mediated subclinical rejection [sc-ABMR]), whereas 53 (70.7%) showed a noninjured, preserved (stable [STA]) parenchyma. High-risk (HR), low-risk, and indeterminate-risk kSORT scores were observed in 15 (20%), 50 (66.7%), and 10 (13.3%) patients, respectively. The ELISPOT assay was positive in 31 (41%) and negative in 44 (58.7%) patients. The kSORT assay showed high accuracy predicting sc-AR (specificity, 98%; positive predictive value 93%) (all sc-ABMR and 58% sc-TCMR showed HR-kSORT), whereas the ELISPOT showed high precision ruling out sc-TCMR(specificity = 70%, negative predictive value = 92.5%), but could not predict sc-ABMR, unlike kSORT. The predictive probabilities for sc-AR, sc-TCMR, and sc-ABMR were significantly higher when combining both biomarkers (area under the curve > 0.85, P < 0.001) and independently predicted the risk of 6-month sc-AR in a multivariate regression analysis. Conclusions. Combining a molecular and immune cell functional assay may help to identify HR patients for sc-AR, distinguishing between different driving alloimmune effector mechanisms.

Preformed T-cell immune-sensitization should most likely impact allograft outcome during the initial period after kidney transplantation, since donor-specific memory T-cells may rapidly recognize alloantigens and activate the effector immune response, which leads to allograft rejection. However, the precise time-frame in which acute rejection is fundamentally triggered by preformed donor-specific memory T cells rather than by de novo activated naïve T cells is still to be established. Here, preformed donor-specific alloreactive T-cell responses were evaluated using the IFN-γ ELISPOT assay in a large consecutive cohort of kidney transplant patients (n = 90), to assess the main clinical variables associated with cellular sensitization and its predominant time-frame impact on allograft outcome, and was further validated in an independent new set of kidney transplant recipients (n = 67). We found that most highly T-cell sensitized patients were elderly patients with particularly poor HLA class-I matching, without any clinically recognizable sensitizing events. While one-year incidence of all types of biopsy-proven acute rejection did not differ between T-cell alloreactive and non-alloreactive patients, Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis indicated the first two months after transplantation as the highest risk time period for acute cellular rejection associated with baseline T-cell sensitization. This effect was particularly evident in young and highly alloreactive individuals that did not receive T-cell depletion immunosuppression. Multivariate analysis confirmed preformed T-cell sensitization as an independent predictor of early acute cellular rejection. In summary, monitoring anti-donor T-cell sensitization before transplantation may help to identify patients at increased risk of acute cellular rejection, particularly in the early phases after kidney transplantation, and thus guide decision-making regarding the use of induction therapy.