Activity-based protein profiling guided identification of urine proteinase 3 activity in subclinical rejection after renal transplantation.
ABHD14B/CCG1-interacting factor B
ABPP/activity-based protein profiling
LTF/LactotransferrinPR3
Neurotrypsin/PRSS12
PR3/PRTN3/myeloblastin
Renal transplant
Serine hydrolase
Urine
Journal
Clinical proteomics
ISSN: 1542-6416
Titre abrégé: Clin Proteomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101184586
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
21
01
2020
accepted:
19
05
2020
entrez:
19
6
2020
pubmed:
19
6
2020
medline:
19
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The pathophysiology of subclinical versus clinical rejection remains incompletely understood given their equivalent histological severity but discordant graft function. The goal was to evaluate serine hydrolase enzyme activities to explore if there were any underlying differences in activities during subclinical versus clinical rejection. Serine hydrolase activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) was performed on the urines of a case control cohort of patients with biopsy confirmed subclinical or clinical transplant rejection. In-gel analysis and affinity purification with mass spectrometry were used to demonstrate and identify active serine hydrolase activity. An assay for proteinase 3 (PR3/PRTN3) was adapted for the quantitation of activity in urine. In-gel ABPP profiles suggested increased intensity and diversity of serine hydrolase activities in urine from patients undergoing subclinical versus clinical rejection. Serine hydrolases (n = 30) were identified by mass spectrometry in subclinical and clinical rejection patients with 4 non-overlapping candidates between the two groups (i.e. ABHD14B, LTF, PR3/PRTN3 and PRSS12). Western blot and the use of a specific inhibitor confirmed the presence of active PR3/PRTN3 in samples from patients undergoing subclinical rejection. Analysis of samples from normal donors or from several serial post-transplant urines indicated that although PR3/PRTN3 activity may be highly associated with low-grade subclinical inflammation, the enzyme activity was not restricted to this patient group. There appear to be limited qualitative and quantitative differences in serine hydrolase activity in patients with subclinical versus clinical renal transplant rejection. The majority of enzymes identified were present in samples from both groups implying that in-gel quantitative differences may largely relate to the activity status of shared enzymes. However qualitative compositional differences were also observed indicating differential activities. The PR3/PRTN3 analyses indicate that the activity status of urine in transplant patients is dynamic possibly reflecting changes in the underlying processes in the transplant. These data suggest that differential serine hydrolase pathways may be active in subclinical versus clinical rejection which requires further exploration in larger patient cohorts. Although this study focused on PR3/PRTN3, this does not preclude the possibility that other enzymes may play critical roles in the rejection process.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The pathophysiology of subclinical versus clinical rejection remains incompletely understood given their equivalent histological severity but discordant graft function. The goal was to evaluate serine hydrolase enzyme activities to explore if there were any underlying differences in activities during subclinical versus clinical rejection.
METHODS
METHODS
Serine hydrolase activity-based protein profiling (ABPP) was performed on the urines of a case control cohort of patients with biopsy confirmed subclinical or clinical transplant rejection. In-gel analysis and affinity purification with mass spectrometry were used to demonstrate and identify active serine hydrolase activity. An assay for proteinase 3 (PR3/PRTN3) was adapted for the quantitation of activity in urine.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In-gel ABPP profiles suggested increased intensity and diversity of serine hydrolase activities in urine from patients undergoing subclinical versus clinical rejection. Serine hydrolases (n = 30) were identified by mass spectrometry in subclinical and clinical rejection patients with 4 non-overlapping candidates between the two groups (i.e. ABHD14B, LTF, PR3/PRTN3 and PRSS12). Western blot and the use of a specific inhibitor confirmed the presence of active PR3/PRTN3 in samples from patients undergoing subclinical rejection. Analysis of samples from normal donors or from several serial post-transplant urines indicated that although PR3/PRTN3 activity may be highly associated with low-grade subclinical inflammation, the enzyme activity was not restricted to this patient group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There appear to be limited qualitative and quantitative differences in serine hydrolase activity in patients with subclinical versus clinical renal transplant rejection. The majority of enzymes identified were present in samples from both groups implying that in-gel quantitative differences may largely relate to the activity status of shared enzymes. However qualitative compositional differences were also observed indicating differential activities. The PR3/PRTN3 analyses indicate that the activity status of urine in transplant patients is dynamic possibly reflecting changes in the underlying processes in the transplant. These data suggest that differential serine hydrolase pathways may be active in subclinical versus clinical rejection which requires further exploration in larger patient cohorts. Although this study focused on PR3/PRTN3, this does not preclude the possibility that other enzymes may play critical roles in the rejection process.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32549867
doi: 10.1186/s12014-020-09284-9
pii: 9284
pmc: PMC7296916
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2012 Dec;27(12):4331-8
pubmed: 22785107
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 05;11(7):e0157905
pubmed: 27380275
J Leukoc Biol. 2006 Dec;80(6):1424-33
pubmed: 16997860
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Mar 16;46(5):2699
pubmed: 29425356
Am J Transplant. 2017 Aug;17(8):2103-2116
pubmed: 28188669
FEBS J. 2017 Jun;284(11):1712-1725
pubmed: 28374518
J Diabetes Res. 2015;2015:289734
pubmed: 25874235
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Jan;29(1):24-34
pubmed: 28993504
Transplantation. 2014 Jul 15;98(1):39-46
pubmed: 24646773
Respir Res. 2018 Sep 20;19(1):180
pubmed: 30236095
Am J Transplant. 2005 Oct;5(10):2464-72
pubmed: 16162196
EBioMedicine. 2017 Feb;16:302-311
pubmed: 28139439
Am J Transplant. 2016 Jan;16(1):194-203
pubmed: 26274817
J Proteome Res. 2018 Oct 5;17(10):3547-3556
pubmed: 30192561
Mediators Inflamm. 2015;2015:293053
pubmed: 26185359
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998 Nov;9(11):2129-34
pubmed: 9808101
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1999 Jul;10(7):1582-9
pubmed: 10405215
Front Immunol. 2017 Nov 06;8:1438
pubmed: 29163511
Clin Proteomics. 2013 Nov 15;10(1):17
pubmed: 24237849
J Biol Chem. 2004 Mar 5;279(10):9615-24
pubmed: 14672934
Am J Transplant. 2007 Nov;7(11):2538-45
pubmed: 17908280
Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):991-1000
pubmed: 18536646
Transplantation. 2019 Sep;103(9):1790-1798
pubmed: 30985576
Biometals. 2004 Jun;17(3):249-55
pubmed: 15222473
Transplantation. 2010 Aug 27;90(4):394-400
pubmed: 20625355
N Engl J Med. 2003 Dec 11;349(24):2326-33
pubmed: 14668458
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2012 Jan 03;11(1):52-68
pubmed: 22212679
Transplantation. 2016 Mar;100(3):648-54
pubmed: 26906940
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004 Jan;15(1):219-27
pubmed: 14694176
Can J Kidney Health Dis. 2015 Aug 18;2:28
pubmed: 26285614
Am J Transplant. 2008 Feb;8(2):317-23
pubmed: 18093273
Kidney Int. 2016 Jun;89(6):1244-52
pubmed: 27165815
Kidney Int. 2015 Oct;88(4):785-95
pubmed: 26176825
Biochemistry. 2020 Jan 21;59(2):183-196
pubmed: 31478652
Am J Transplant. 2006 Apr;6(4):747-52
pubmed: 16539631
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003 Jun;14(6):1662-8
pubmed: 12761269
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Aug;30(8):1481-1494
pubmed: 31278196
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Dec 21;96(26):14694-9
pubmed: 10611275
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015 Jul;26(7):1721-31
pubmed: 25556173
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2017 May;26(3):229-234
pubmed: 28221173
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2017 Mar;28(3):735-747
pubmed: 28062570
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998 Mar;9(3):482-7
pubmed: 9513912
Nucleic Acids Res. 2018 Jan 4;46(D1):D624-D632
pubmed: 29145643
Transplant Direct. 2016 May 19;2(6):e78
pubmed: 27500268
J Med Chem. 2018 Mar 8;61(5):1858-1870
pubmed: 29442501
Am J Transplant. 2018 Apr;18(4):785-795
pubmed: 29178397
Immunol Rev. 2016 Sep;273(1):232-48
pubmed: 27558338