Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The promise of protein-based and gene-based clinical markers in heart transplantation: from bench to bedside

Abstract

Advances in immunosuppression, guided by invasive endomyocardial biopsy for the assessment of graft rejection, have ushered heart transplantation into the clinical arena by the demonstration of acceptable 1-year outcomes. Further decreases in the risk of malignancy and cardiac allograft vasculopathy that improve long-term outcomes, are, however, still desired. Attention has become directed towards the use of markers that can be detected noninvasively to provide insight into underlying molecular and cellular events associated with the immune response and graft function. Various candidate, protein-based markers have been identified: those of alloimmune activation; those of microvascular injury, such as cardiac-specific troponins; those of inflammation, including C-reactive protein; and surrogate markers of cardiac function, including natriuretic peptides such as brain natriuretic peptide. In the realm of genomics, it is becoming increasingly clear that a single molecular marker is unlikely to prove to be useful, but rather that multiple genes from a number of pathways are needed to capture biological complexity and overcome variability in the general population. Thus, the field of protein-based and gene-based biomarkers is advancing rapidly to define its place in clinical therapeutics and to guide immunosuppression according to molecular mechanisms of disease. We discuss here the main findings for the more-successful protein markers identified so far, and the genomic molecular approaches being used to improve heart transplant outcomes.

Key Points

  • Single-gene polymorphisms are helpful in understanding outcomes after heart transplantation but are not established as useful clinical monitoring tools

  • Peripheral blood mononuclear cell multigene-based molecular assays have shown the most promise for the discrimination of immunologic allograft quiescence and can anticipate future rejection

  • Protein-based biomarkers are less costly than gene-based biomarkers but more study is needed to guide their clinical use, although their negative predictive value seems most useful.

  • The protein-based biomarkers troponin (microvascular injury) C-reactive protein (inflammation) and brain natriuretic peptide (allograft wall stress and remodeling) correlate well with allograft failure and vasculopathy

  • The ideal noninvasive biomarker in heart transplantation will probably combine gene-based and protein-based approaches in a complementary manner rather than use these approaches in isolation

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mehra MR et al. (2002) Anything but a biopsy: noninvasive monitoring for cardiac allograft rejection. Curr Opin Cardiol 17: 131–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marboe CC et al. (2005) Nodular endocardial infiltrates (Quilty lesions) cause significant variability in diagnosis of ISHLT grade 2 and 3A rejection in cardiac allograft recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 24 (Suppl): S219–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mehra MR (2005) The emergence of genomic and proteomic biomarkers in heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 24 (Suppl): S213–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Awad MR et al. (2001) The effect of cytokine gene polymorphisms on pediatric heart allograft outcome. J Heart Lung Transplant 20: 625–630

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Webber SA et al. (2002) Polymorphisms in cytokine genes do not predict progression to end-stage heart failure in children. Cardiol Young 12: 461–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abdallah AN et al. (1999) Analysis of the polymorphism of the tumour necrosis factor (TNF) gene and promoter and of circulating TNF-alpha levels in heart-transplant patients suffering or not suffering from severe rejection. Eur J Immunogenet 26: 249–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Densem CG et al. (2001) Influence of tumor necrosis factor-alpha gene-308 polymorphism on the development of coronary vasculopathy after cardiac transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 20: 1265–1273

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Borozdenkova S et al. (2001) Identification of ICAM1 polymorphism that is associated with protection from transplant associated vasculopathy after cardiac transplantation. Hum Immunol 62: 247–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Pethig K et al. (2000) ACE-gene polymorphism is associated with the development of allograft vascular disease in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transplant 19: 1175–1182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Baan CC et al. (2000) Renal failure after clinical heart transplantation is associated with the TGF-β 1 codon 10 gene polymorphism. J Heart Lung Transplant 19: 866–872

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ojo AO et al. (2003) Chronic renal failure after transplantation of a nonrenal organ. N Engl J Med 349: 931–940

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zheng H et al. (2003) Tacrolimus dosing in pediatric heart transplant patients is related to CYP3A5 and MDR1 gene polymorphisms. Am J Transplant 3: 477–483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zheng HX et al. (2004) The impact of pharmacogenomic factors on steroid dependency in pediatric heart transplant patients using logistic regression analysis. Pediatr Transplant 8: 551–557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Holweg CT et al. (2004) Clinical impact of cytokine gene polymorphisms in heart and lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 23: 1017–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Christopher K et al. (2004) Modulation of gene expression by alloimmune networks following murine heart transplantation. Mol Genet Genomics 271: 687–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Matsui Y et al. (2003) Identification of gene expression profile in tolerizing murine cardiac allograft by costimulatory blockade. Physiol Genomics 15: 199–208

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. DeFina R et al. (2003) Analysis of costimulation by 4-1BBL, CD40L, and B7 in graft rejection by gene expression profiles. J Mol Med 81: 655–663

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Shulzhenko N et al. (2001) Intragraft activation of genes encoding cytotoxic T lymphocyte effector molecules precedes the histological evidence of rejection in human cardiac transplantation. Transplantation 72: 1705–1708

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. de Groot-Kruseman HA et al. (2003) Differential intragraft cytokine messenger RNA profiles during rejection and repair of clinical heart transplants. A longitudinal study. Transpl Int 16: 9–14

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fahmy NM et al. (2003) Chemokine and chemokine receptor gene expression indicates acute rejection of human cardiac transplants. Transplantation 75: 72–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Horwitz PA et al. (2004) Detection of cardiac allograft rejection and response to immunosuppressive therapy with peripheral blood gene expression. Circulation 110: 3815–3821

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Morgun A et al. (2003) Blood and intragraft CD27 gene expression in cardiac transplant recipients. Clin Immunol 107: 60–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Schoels M et al. (2004) Detection of cardiac allograft rejection by real-time PCR analysis of circulating mononuclear cells. Clin Transplant 18: 513–517

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Deng M et al. (2006) Non-invasive detection of rejection in cardiac allograft recipients using gene expression profiling. Am J Transplant 6: 150–160

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Starling R et al. (2005) The influence of corticosteroids on the alloimmune molecular signature for cardiac allograft rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 24 (Suppl): S65–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Re F et al. (1994) The type II “receptor” as a decoy target for interleukin 1 in polymorphonuclear leukocytes: characterization of induction by dexamethasone and ligand binding properties of the released decoy receptor. J Exp Med 179: 739–743

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bernstein D et al. (2005) Gene expression profiling of cardiac allograft recipients with mild acute cellular rejection [abstract]. J Heart Lung Transplant 24 (Suppl): S65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Evans RW et al. (2005) The economic implications of noninvasive molecular testing for cardiac allograft rejection. Am J Transplant 5: 1553–1558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Borozdenkova S et al. (2004) Use of proteomics to discover novel markers of cardiac allograft rejection. J Proteome Res 3: 282–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. De Souza AI et al. (2005) Heat shock protein 27 is associated with freedom from graft vasculopathy after human cardiac transplantation. Circ Res 97: 192–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tambur AR et al. (2000) Flow cytometric detection of HLA-specific antibodies as a predictor of heart allograft rejection. Transplantation 70: 1055–1059

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Kobashigawa JA et al. (1996) Pretransplant panel reactive-antibody screens. Are they truly a marker for poor outcome after cardiac transplantation? Circulation 94 (Suppl): II294–II297

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor DO et al. (2000) Allograft coronary artery disease: clinical correlations with circulating anti-HLA antibodies and the immunohistopathologic pattern of vascular rejection. J Heart Lung Transplant 19: 518–521

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Thompson JS et al. (2000) The influence of conventional and cross-reactive group HLA matching on cardiac transplant outcome: an analysis from the United Network of Organ Sharing Scientific Registry. Transplantation 69: 2178–2186

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. John R et al. (2000) Impact of current management practices on early and late death in more than 500 consecutive cardiac transplant recipients. Ann Surg 232: 302–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Itescu S et al. (1998) An immunological algorithm to predict risk of high-grade rejection in cardiac transplant recipients. Lancet 352: 263–270

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Mehra MR et al. (2004) The impact of mode of donor brain death on cardiac allograft vasculopathy: an intravascular ultrasound study. J Am Coll Cardiol 43: 806–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Yamani MH et al. (2002) Myocardial ischemic-fibrotic injury after human heart transplantation is associated with increased progression of vasculopathy, decreased cellular rejection and poor long-term outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 39: 970–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Taegtmeyer AB et al. (2004) Reduced incidence of hypertension after heterotopic cardiac transplantation compared with orthotopic cardiac transplantation: evidence that excision of the native heart contributes to post-transplant hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol 44: 1254–1260

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Labarrere CA et al. (2000) Cardiac-specific troponin I levels and risk of coronary artery disease and graft failure following heart transplantation. JAMA 284: 457–464

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Benza RL et al. (1998) Gene polymorphisms for plasminogen activator inhibitor-1/tissue plasminogen activator and development of allograft coronary artery disease. Circulation 98: 2248–2254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Labarrere CA et al. (1995) Vascular tissue plasminogen activator and the development of coronary artery disease in heart-transplant recipients. N Engl J Med 333: 1111–1116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Yamani MH et al. (2002) Acute vascular rejection is associated with up-regulation of vitronectin receptor (αvβ3), increased expression of tissue factor, and activation of the extracellular matrix metalloproteinase induction system. J Heart Lung Transplant 21: 983–989

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ventura HO and Mehra MR (2003) C-Reactive protein and cardiac allograft vasculopathy is inflammation the critical link? J Am Coll Cardiol 42: 483–485

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Eisenberg MS et al. (2000) Elevated levels of plasma C-reactive protein are associated with decreased graft survival in cardiac transplant recipients. Circulation 102: 2100–2104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Pethig K et al. (2000) Systemic inflammatory response in cardiac allograft vasculopathy: high-sensitivity C-reactive protein is associated with progressive luminal obstruction. Circulation 102 (Suppl 3): III233–III236

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Labarrere CA et al. (2002) C-reactive protein, arterial endothelial activation, and development of transplant coronary artery disease: a prospective study. Lancet 360: 1462–1467

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Hognestad A et al. (2003) Plasma C-reactive protein as a marker of cardiac allograft vasculopathy in heart transplant recipients. J Am Coll Cardiol 42: 477–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Autieri MV et al. (2002) Allograft inflammatory factor-1 expression correlates with cardiac rejection and development of cardiac allograft vasculopathy. Circulation 106: 2218–2223

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Mehra MR et al. (2004) Usefulness of an elevated B-type natriuretic peptide to predict allograft failure, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and survival after heart transplantation. Am J Cardiol 94: 454–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Mehra MR et al. (2004) Molecular pathways of cardiac allograft dysfunction independent of acute cellular rejection [abstract]. J Am Coll Cardiol 43 (Suppl A): 1051–1127: 175A

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ogawa T et al. Neuroendocrine profiling of humans receiving cardiac allografts. J Heart Lung Transplant 24: 1046–1054

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mandeep R Mehra.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Mandeep R Mehra has received research grants or consulting fees from Biosite Diagnostics and XDx Inc., makers of the brain natriuretic peptide assay and Allomap, respectively. Steve Rosenberg is currently employed by XDx Inc.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mehra, M., Feller, E. & Rosenberg, S. The promise of protein-based and gene-based clinical markers in heart transplantation: from bench to bedside. Nat Rev Cardiol 3, 136–143 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio0457

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpcardio0457

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing