Biomarkers of immunosuppressive drug toxicity

Current Opinion in Organ Transplantation

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 284-294

  Christians, Uwe ^a   Reisdorph, Nichole ^a   Klawitter, Jost ^a   Schmitz, Volker ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Biochemical profiling; Calcineurin inhibitors; Chronic allograft dysfunction; Everolimus; Immunosuppressant toxicity; Metabolomics; Metabonomics; Mycophenolic acid; Pharmacogenetics; Proteomics; Sirolimus; Toxicogenomics

Indexed keywords

AZATHIOPRINE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CYCLOSPORIN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE AGENT; RAPAMYCIN; TACROLIMUS;

DRUG MONITORING; GENE CONTROL; GENETIC POLYMORPHISM; GENOMICS; GRAFT REJECTION; HUMAN; IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE TREATMENT; LONG TERM CARE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PHARMACOGENETICS; PREDICTION; PROTEOMICS; REVIEW; TOXICITY; TOXICOGENETICS; TRANSPLANTATION;

EID: 28044440038     PISSN: 10872418     EISSN: 15317013     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mot.0000184018.31573.34     Document Type: Review

References (91)

1. Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69:89-95.
2. Koop R. Combinatorial biomarkers: from early toxicology assays to patient population profiling. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10:781-788. This concise status report discusses systems biology and its potential use and impact on drug development in the near future.
3. Ilyin SE, Belkowski SM, Plata-Salaman CR. Biomarker discovery and validation: technologies and integrative approaches. Trends Biotechnol 2004; 22:411-416. The authors discuss the advantages of integrating different 'omics' technologies as a strategy for high-throughput biomarker identification and validation during drug development.
4. Anderson NL, Polanski M, Pieper R, et al. The human plasma proteome: a nonredundant list developed by combination of four separate sources. Mol Cell Proteomics 2004; 3:311-326. In this manuscript, a list of all proteins for which evidence in the human plasma exists is compiled and the potential for development of plasma proteome-based diagnostic tools is discussed.
5. Meier-Kriesche HU, Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Kaplan BD. Lack of improvement in allograft survival despite a marked decrease in acute rejection rates over the most recent era. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:378-383.
6. Berl T. American Society of Nephrology Renal Research Report. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16:1886-1903. This position paper describes the status of kidney transplantation and emphasizes the importance and potential of biomarkers in the prevention of chronic allograft dysfunction as well as in other areas in the field of nephrology.
7. Merville P. Combating chronic renal allograft dysfunction. Optimal immunosuppressive regimens. Drugs 2005; 65:615-631. The author summarizes the pathophysiology and pathology and discusses current therapeutic strategies to avoid or reduce chronic allograft dysfunction in kidney transplant patients.
8. Kahan BD. Potential therapeutic interventions to avoid or treat chronic allograft dysfunction. Transplantation 2001; 71:SS52-SS57.
9. Campistol JM, Grinyo JM. Exploring treatment options in renal transplantation: the problems of chronic allograft dysfunction and drug-related nephrotoxicity. Transplantation 2001;71(11 Suppl.):SS42-SS51.
10. Cornell LD, Colvin RB. Chronic allograft nephropathy. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2005; 14:229-234. This is a review of the mechanisms leading to chronic kidney allograft dysfunction.
11. Joosten SA, Sijpkens YWJ, Van Kooten C, Paul LC. Chronic allograft rejection. Pathophysiological considerations. Kidney Int 2005; 68:1-13.
12. Bowdish ME, Arcasoy SM, Wilt JS, et al. Surrogate markers and risk factors for lung allograft dysfunction. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:1171-1178.
13. Miyagawa-Hayashino A, Tsuruyama T, Haga H, et al. Arteriopathy in chronic allograft rejection in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2004; 10:513-519.
14. Nankivell BJ, Borrow RJ, Fung CLS, et al. Calcineurin inhibitor nephrotoxicity: longitudinal assessment by protocol histology. Transplantation 2004; 78:557-565. A key clinical trial documents for the first time the role of cyclosporine in progressive kidney graft dysfunction based on histological analysis of protocol kidney biopsies collected regularly in 99 kidney graft patients over a period of 10 years.
15. Trapp A, Weiss M. The impact of immunosuppression on endothelial function. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2005; 45:81-87. This study compares the effect of all immunosuppressants on endothelial function in an in-vitro model based on human microvascular endothelial cells.
16. Miyagi M, Ishikawa Y, Mizuiri S, et al. Significance of subclinical rejection in early renal allograft biopsies for chronic allograft dysfunction. Clin Transplant 2005; 19:456-465. The authors found that early subclinical rejection correlated with subsequent allograft dysfunction and that high-dose steroids were effective to suppress subclinical rejection.
17. Meyers CM, Kirk AD. Workshop on late renal allograft dysfunction. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:1600-1605. This report of an expert meeting discusses information on late allograft loss and strategies relevant to future clinical studies of allograft function.
18. 1, interferon-γ, and interleukin-10 genotypes correlated with outcome.
19. Alakulppi NS, Kyllönen LE, Jäntti VT, et al. Cytokine gene polymorphism and risks of acute rejection and delayed graft function after kidney transplantation. Transplantation 2004; 78:1422-1428.
20. Warlé MC, Metselaar HJ, Hop WCJ, Tilanus HW. Cytokine gene polymorphisms and acute liver graft rejection: a meta-analysis. Liver Transpl 2005; 11:19-26. This recent meta-analysis suggests that IL-10 polymorphism plays a role in liver graft rejection.
21. Akatin E, Murphy B. Gene polymorphisms and transplantation. Curr Opin Immunol 2001; 13:572-576.
22. Dickinson AM, Middelton PG, Rocha V, et al. Genetic polymorphisms predicting the outcome of bone marrow transplants. Br J Haematol 2004; 127:479-490.
23. Dickinson AM, Middleton PG. Beyond the HLA typing age: genetic polymorphisms predicting transplant outcome. Blood Rev 2005. (in press) This review summarizes the latest research regarding single nucleotide polymorphisms of non-HLA encoded genes and the prediction of outcome hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.
24. Marder B, Schöppel B, Murphy B. Genetic variability and transplantation. Curr Opin Urol 2003; 13:81-89.
25. Barbari A, Stephan A, Masri MA, et al. Chronic graft dysfunction: donor factors. Transplant Proc 2001; 33:2695-2698.
26. Hoffmann S, Park J, Jacobson LM, et al. Donor genomics influences graft events: The effect of donor polymorphisms on acute rejection and chronic allograft nephropathy. Kidney Int 2004; 66:1686-1693. Polymorphisms from 244 renal allograft donors were analyzed and correlated with graft events such as chronic allograft nephropathy.
27. Hoffmann SC, Stanley EM, Cox ED, et al. Ethnicity greatly influences gene polymorphism distribution. Am J Transplant 2002; 2:560-567.
28. 2 and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) mRNA expression in the renal cortex, that allow for distinguishing between chronic rejection and chronic cyclosporine toxicity with high specificity and sensitivity.
29. Anglicheau D, Legendre C, Thervet E. Pharmacogenetics in solid organ transplantation: present knowledge and future perspectives. Transplantation 2004; 78:311-315. This article gives an overview over the pharmacogenetic basis of inter-individual variability of
30. Christians U, Schmitz V, Haschke M. Functional interactions between p-glycoprotein and CYP3A in drug metabolism. Exp Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2005. (in press) This review article summarizes the status of transporter/drug metabolizing enzyme interactions.
31. Hesselink DA, van Gelder T, van Schaik RH. The pharmacogenetics of calcineurin inhibitors: one step closer toward individualized immunosuppression? Pharmacogenetics 2005; 6:323-337. The authors review the potential of identifying single nucleotide polymorphisms in transplant patients for avoiding under-immunosuppression or toxicity.
32. van Gelder T, Hesselink DA, van Hest RM, et al. Pharmacogenetics in immunosuppressive therapy: the best thing since TDM? Ther Drug Monit 2004; 26:343-346.
33. Coulthard S, Howell C, Robson J, Hall A. The relationship between thiopurine methyltransferase activity and genotype in blasts from patients with acute leukaemia. Blood 1998; 92:2856-2862.
34. Yan L, Zhang S, Eiff B, et al. Thiopurine methyltransferase activity and the use of azathioprine in inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2002; 16:1743-1750.
35. Hamdan-Khalil R, Allorge D, Lo-Guidie J, et al. In vitro characterization of four novel non-functional variants of the thiopurine S-methyltransferase gene. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003; 309:1005-1010.
36. Breen DP, Marinaki AM, Arenas M, Hayes PC. Pharmacogenetic association with adverse drug reactions to azathioprine immunosuppressive therapy following liver transplantation. Liver Transpl 2005; 11:826-833. This study underlines the importance of taking donor and recipient pharmacogenetics into account. The genotype for thiopurine S-methyltransferase of liver transplant patients was not correlated with myelosuppression. Azathioprine is mainly metabolized in the liver.
37. Hesselink DA, Van Schaik RHN, Van Der Heiden IP, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of the CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and MDR-1 genes and pharmacokinetics of the calcineurin inhibitors cyclosporine and tacrolimus. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 74:245-254.
38. Hesselink DA, Van Gelder T, Van Schaik RHN, et al. Population pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in kidney and heart transplant recipients and the influence of ethnicity and genetic polymorphism in the MDR-1, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 genes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 76:545-556.
39. Haufroid V, Mourad M, Van Kerckhove V, et al. The effect of CYP3A5 and MDR1 (ABCB1) polymorphisms on cyclosporine and tacrolimus dose requirements and trough blood levels in stable renal transplant patients. Pharmacogenetics 2004; 14:147-154.
40. Anglicheau D, Thervet E, Etienne I, et al. CYP3A5 and MDR1 genetic polymorphisms and cyclosporine pharmacokinetics after renal transplantation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 75:422-433.
41. Bonhomme-Faivre L, Devocelle A, Saliba F, et al. MDR-1 C3435T polymorphism influences cyolosporine A dose requirement in liver transplant recipients. Transplantation 2004; 78:21-25.
42. Chowbay B, Cumaraswamy S, Cheung YB, et al. Genetic polymorphisms in MDR1 and CYP3A4 genes in Asians and the influence of MDR1 haplotypes on cyclosporine disposition in heart transplant recipients. Pharmacogenetics 2003; 13:89-95.
43. Anglicheau D, Le Corre D, Lechaton S, et al. Consequences of genetic polymorphisms for sirolimus requirements after renal transplant in patients on primary sirolimus therapy. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:595-603.
44. Thervet E, Anglicheau D, King B, et al. Impact of cytochrome p450 3A5 polymorphism on tacrolimus doses and concentration-to-dose ratio in renal transplant recipients. Transplantation 2003; 76:1233-1235.
45. Anglicheau D, Verstuyft C, Laurent-Puig P, et al. Association of the multidrug resistance-1 gene single-nucleotide polymorphism with the tacrolimus dose requirements in renal transplant recipients. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003; 14:1889-1896.
46. Macphee IA, Fredericks S, Mohamed M, et al. Tacrolimus pharmacogenetics: the CYP3A5*1 allele predicts low dose-normalized tacrolimus blood concentrations in whites and South Asians. Transplantation 2005; 79:499-502.
47. Tada H, Tsuchiya N, Satoh S, et al. Impact of CYP3A5 and MDR1 (ABCB1) C3435T polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in renal transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2005; 37:1730-1732.
48. Goto M, Masuda S, Kiuchi T, et al. CYP3A5*1-carrying graft liver reduces the concentration/oral dose ratio of tacrolimus in recipients of living-donor liver transplantation. Pharmacogenetics 2004; 14:471-478. This study shows that for the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in liver transplant patients the genotype of the donor and not of the recipient is of greater importance. Thus, liver transplant patients with different donor CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 genotypes may be an interesting model to understand the importance of the roles of CYP3A and P-glycoprotein and their functional interactions.
49. Zheng HX, Schuetz E, Zeevi A, et al. Sequential analysis of tacrolimus dosing in adult lung transplant patients in adult lung transplant patients with ABCB1 haplotypes. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45:404-410. This study analyses ABCB1 geno- and haplotypes and the results suggest that haplotype analysis may be clinically relevant and may explain some of the controversial results in the literature.
50. Thervet E, Legendre C, Beaune P,Anglicheau D. Cytochrome P4503A polymorphisms and immunosuppressive drugs. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6:37-47.
51. Lown KS, Mayo RR, Leichtman AB, et al. Role of intestinal p-glycoprotein (mdr1) in interpatient variation in the oral bioavailability of cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62:248-260.
52. Stalder M, Brisan M, Holm B, et al. Quantification of immunosuppression by flow cytometry in stable renal transplant recipients. Ther Drug Monit 2003; 25:22-27.
53. Donnenberg VS, Burckhart GJ, Zeevi A. P-glycoprotein activity is increased in CD4+ but not CD8+ lung allograft-infiltrating T cells during acute cellular rejection. Transplantation 2004; 77:1699-1706.
54. Oselin K, Nowakowski-Gashaw I, Mronzikiewicz PM, et al. Quantitative determination of MDR mRNA expression in peripheral blood lymphocytes: a possible role of genetic polymorphisms in the MDR1 gene. Eur J Clin Invest 2003; 33:261-267.
55. Hauser IA, Schaeffeler E, Gauer S, et al. ABCB1 genotype of the donor but not of the recipient is a major risk factor for cyclosporine-related nephrotoxicity after renal transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005; 16: e-publication ahead of print. This clinical study showed for the first time that the ABCB1 genotype of the donor determines the susceptibility of the kidney to immunosuppressant toxicity probably by decreasing calcineurin inhibitor distribution into donor kidneys with high P-glycorpotein expression.
56. Yamauchi A, Ieiri I, Kataoka Y, et al. Neurotoxicity induced by tacrolimus after liver transplantation: relation to genetic polymorphisms of the ABCB1 (MDR1) gene. Transplantation 2002; 571-578.
57. Schinkel AH, Wagenaar E, van Deemter L, et al. Absence of the mdr1a p-glycoprotein in mice affects tissue distribution and pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone, digoxin, and cyclosporin A. J Clin Invest 1995; 96:1698-1705.
58. Flechner SM, Kurian SM, Head SR, et al. Kidney transplant rejection and tissue injury by gene profiling of biopsies and peripheral blood lymphocytes. Am J Transplant 2004; 4:1475-1489. This is the first true genomic approach to monitoring transplant patients and has great potential to evolve into a clinical managing tool.
59. Plebani M. Proteomics: The next revolution in laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2005; 357:113-122. The author discusses recent developments in proteomics that could lead to a new era of diagnostics test in clinical laboratories.
60. Kavallaris M, Marshall GM. Proteomics and disease: opportunities and challenges. Med J Aust 2005; 182:575-579. This is a review of the status of proteomics in identifying proteins that offer promise as diagnostic and prognostic markers or as therapeutic targets.
61. Cutillas PR, Norden AG, Cramer R, et al. Detection and analysis of urinary peptides by on-line liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry: application to patients with renal Fanconi syndrome. Clin Sci (Lond) 2003; 104:483-490.
62. Weissinger EM, Wittke S, Kaiser T, et al. Proteomic patterns established with capillary electrophoresis and mass spectrometry for diagnostic purposes. Kidney Int 2004; 65:2426-2434. This is part of a series of publications by the same group of investigators systematically exploring CE-MS-based proteomics as a tool for the diagnosis of kidney diseases.
63. Haubitz M, Wittke S, Weissinger EM, et al. Urine protein patterns can serve as diagnostic tools in patients with IgA nephropathy. Kidney Int 2005; 67:2313-2120. This study shows that CE-MS-based proteomics in urine allows for differentiation of patients with IgA nephropathy and healthy subjects.
64. Clarke W, Silverman BC, Zhang Z, et al. Characterization of renal allograft reception by urinary proteomic analysis. Ann Surg 2003; 237:660-665.
65. Wittke S, Haubitz M, Walden M, et al. Detection of acute tubulointerstitial rejection by proteomic analysis of urinary samples in renal transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2005. (in press) The authors present an analysis of the urine proteome using CE-TOF to diagnostically distinguish kidney graft patients with rejection from those without rejection and from patients with urinary tract infections and healthy subjects.
66. O'Riordan E, Orlova TN, Mei J J, et al. Bioinformatic analysis of the urine proteome of acute allograft rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:3240-3248. This study is a comparison of the urinary proteome in kidney graft patients with and without acute rejection and in healthy volunteers using SELDI-TOF.
67. Schaub S, Rush D, Wilkins J, et al. Proteomic-based detection of urine proteins associated with acute renal allograft rejection. J Am Soc Nephrol 2004; 15:219-227. The authors identify polypeptide/protein clusters in the urine of kidney graft patients with acute rejection that are absent in healthy subjects and kidney graft patients without rejection using SELDI-TOF.
68. Schaub S, Wilkins JA, Antonovici M, et al. Proteomic-based identification of cleaved urinary β2-microglobulin as a potential marker for acute injury in renal allografts. Am J Transplant 2005; 5:729-738. This study follows up on the findings that were reported in reference [67] and shows that β2-microglobulin is the major protein underlying the protein clusters that were able to distinguish between kidney graft patients with and without acute rejection in the previous study.
69. Kaiser T, Kamal H, Rank A, et al. Proteomics applied to the clinical follow-up of patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Blood 2004; 104:340-349. This is the first study to describe the analysis of the urine proteome using CE-TOF to diagnostically distinguish patients with and without graft-versus-host disease after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and healthy subjects.
70. Schaub S, Wilkins J, Weiler T, et al. Urine protein profiling with surface-enhanced laser-desorption/ ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Kidney Int 2004; 65:232-332. This is a critical evaluation of different proteomics tools regarding their potential for clinical diagnostics and evaluation of factors that influence reproducibility of SELDI-TOF analysis.
71. Wittke S, Fliser D, Haubitz M, et al. Determination of peptides and proteins in human urine with capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry, a suitable tool for the establishment of new diagnostic markers. J Chromatogr A 2003; 1013:173-181.
72. Bodovitz S, Joos T, Bachmann J. Protein biochips: the calm before the storm. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10:283-287. The authors review the status and future developments in the field of protein biochips.
73. Omenn GS. The human proteome organization plasma proteome pilot phase: reference specimens, technology platform comparisons, and standard data submissions and analyses. Proteomics 2004; 4:1235-1240. This overview article summarizes the activities of the Human Proteome Organization (HUPO) in terms of setting up reference databases, validation, and standardization of sample and data handling and analysis as well as cross-validation of participating laboratories.
74. Aicher L, Wahl D, Arce A,Grenet O. Steiner S. New insights into cyclosporine A nephrotoxicity by proteome analysis. Electrophoresis 1998; 19:1998-2003.
75. Nicholson JK, Lindon JC, Holmes E.'Metabonomics': understanding the metabolic responses of living systems to pathophysiological stimuli via multivariate statistical analysis of biological NMR spectroscopic data. Xenobiotica 1999; 29:1181-1189.
76. Griffin JL. Metabonomics: NMR spectroscopy and pattern recognition analysis of body fluids and tissues for characterization of xenobiotics toxicity and disease diagnostic. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2003; 7:648-654.
77. Pelczer I. High-resolution NMR for metabonomics. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 2005; 8:127-133.
78. Dunn WB, Bailey NJ, Johnson SE. Measuring the metabolome: current analytical technologies. Analyst 2005; 130:606-625. The authors present a complete review of analytical technologies used in metabonomics.
79. Serkova NJ, Christians U. Biomarkers for toxicodynamic monitoring of immunosuppressants: NMR-based quantitative metabonomics on the blood. Ther Drug Monit 2005. (in press) This review summarizes the current status on nuclear magnetic resonance-based metabonomics and its application for assessing the mechanisms of immunosuppressant toxicity and detection of the effects of on cell metabolism in vivo.
80. Nicholson JK, Connelly J, Lindon JC, Holmes E. Metabonomics: a platform for studying drug toxicity and gene function. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1:153-161.
81. Shokcor JP, Holmes E. Metabonomic applications in toxicity screening and disease diagnosis. Curr Top Med Chem 2002; 2:35-51.
82. Serkova NJ, Christians U, Benet LZ. Biochemical mechanisms of cyclosporine neurotoxicity. Mol Interv 2004; 4:97-107. This publication describes the recent literature evaluating cyclosporine neurotoxicity in in vitro, ex vivo and in rat studies using metabolic profiling technologies.
83. Serkova N, Christians U. Transplantation: Toxicokinetics and mechanisms of toxicity of cyclosporine and macrolides. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 2003; 4:1287-1296.
84. 1H NMR spectroscopy, HPLC-TOF/MS and chemometrics. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2004; 35:599-608. The authors used nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry to characterize biochemical profiles in rats treated with cyclosporine in comparison to controls. However, very high cyclosporine doses of 45 mg/kg/day were administered.
85. Fuller TF, Serkova N, Niemann CU, Freise CE. Influence of donor pretreatment with N-acetylcysteine on ischemia/reperfusion injury in rat kidney grafts. J Urol 2004; 171:1296-1300.
86. 1H-NMR-based metabolic signatures of mild and severe ischemia/reperfusion injury in rat kidney transplants. Kidney Int 2005; 67:1142-1151.
87. rd ASMS Conference on Mass Spectrometry, San Antonio, TX, June 5-9, 2005.
88. Le Moyec L, Pruna A, Eugene M, et al. Proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy of urine and plasma in renal transplantation follow up. Nephron 1993; 65:433-439.
89. Lindon JC, Nicholson JK, Holmes E, et al. Summary recommendations for standardization and reporting of metabolic analyses. Nat Biotechnol 2005; 23:833-838. In this commentary, The Standard Metabolic Reporting Structures working group outlines its vision regarding standardization and reporting of metabolic studies. See also: http://www.smsgroup.org/documents.
90. Lindon JC, Nicholson JK, Holmes E, et al. Contemporary issues in toxicology. The role of metabonomics in toxicology and its evaluation by the COMET project. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2003; 187:137-146.
91. CDER. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Guidance for the Industry. Bioanalytical Method Validation, May 2001. (http://www.fda.gov/cder)