Background
Kidney transplantation is a life-restorative therapy, but immune rejection undermines allograft survival. Urinary cell mRNA profiles offer a noninvasive means of diagnosing kidney allograft rejection, but urine processing protocols have logistical constraints. We aimed to determine whether the centrifugation-based method for urinary cell mRNA profiling could be replaced with a simpler filtration-based method without undermining quality.
Conclusions
Urinary cell mRNA profiling was simplified using the ZFBP without undermining RNA quality or diagnostic utility. Home processing by the kidney allograft recipients, the stability of RNA containing filtrates at ambient temperature, and the elimination of the need for centrifuges and freezers represent some of the advantages of ZFBP over the CCBP for urinary cell mRNA profiling.
Methods
We isolated RNA from urine collected from kidney allograft recipients using the Cornell centrifugation-based protocol (CCBP) or the Zymo filter-based protocol (ZFBP) and compared RNA purity and yield using a spectrophotometer or a fluorometer and measured absolute copy number of transcripts using customized real-time quantitative PCR assays. We investigated the performance characteristics of RNA isolated using ZFBP and stored either at -80 °C or at ambient temperature for 2 to 4 days and also when shipped to our Gene Expression Monitoring (GEM) Core at ambient temperature. We examined the feasibility of initial processing of urine samples by kidney allograft recipients trained by the GEM Core staff and the diagnostic utility for acute rejection, of urine processed using the ZFBP.
Results
RNA purity (P = 0.0007, Wilcoxon matched paired signed-ranks test) and yield (P < 0.0001) were higher with ZFBP vs. CCBP, and absolute copy number of 18S rRNA was similar (P = 0.79) following normalization of RNA yield by reverse transcribing a constant amount of RNA isolated using either protocol. RNA purity, yield, and absolute copy numbers of 18S rRNA, TGF-β1 mRNA and microRNA-26a were not different (P > 0.05) in the filtrates containing RNA stored either at -80 °C or at ambient temperature for 2 to 4 days or shipped overnight at ambient temperature. RNA purity, yield, and absolute copy numbers of 18S rRNA and TGF-β1 mRNA were also not different (P > 0.05) between home processed and laboratory processed urine filtrates. Urinary cell levels of mRNA for granzyme B (P = 0.01) and perforin (P = 0.0002) in the filtrates were diagnostic of acute rejection in human kidney allografts. Conclusions: Urinary cell mRNA profiling was simplified using the ZFBP without undermining RNA quality or diagnostic utility. Home processing by the kidney allograft recipients, the stability of RNA containing filtrates at ambient temperature, and the elimination of the need for centrifuges and freezers represent some of the advantages of ZFBP over the CCBP for urinary cell mRNA profiling.