The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of UFPI with the number 0153.0.045.000-10, and informed consent was obtained from recipients and relatives prior to Linsitinib solubility dmso inclusion, according to the Declaration of Helsinki. A 55-year-old man with CDC assay negative received a kidney transplant from his mother (Table 1). Eight years after transplantation he lost the kidney by chronic rejection. A serum screen of this recipient using single class I and II allele SPA Luminex panels (Labscreen; OneLambda, Canoga Park, CA) revealed the presence of anti-class II donor specific antibodies (anti-DRB5*02:02) as well as non-donor specific antibodies (Fig. 4).

We asked why the recipient developed antibodies against antigens to which he was never exposed. In order to solve this problem we used the EpHLA software. A closer view of results in the EpHLA’s Histocompatibility Map report showed that

all HLA molecules to which the recipient developed antibodies share eplets with DRB5*02:02 from the immunizer. Interestingly, the DRB5*02:02 molecule has three potentially immunogenic eplets: 6C, 71QAA, 108T3. We noted that while 6C eplet appears only on DRB5*02:02 molecule, the 71QAA eplet is shared by molecules of serum group DR15 (DRB1*15:01, DRB1*15:02, DRB1*15:03) and the 108T3 eplet is shared by DRB5*01:01 (Fig. 4). Thus, we were able to identify the epitopes targeted by the recipient’s Selleckchem PD0332991 HLA antibodies using the EpHLA software, and the alleles DRB5*02:02, DRB5*01:01, DRB1*15:01, DRB1*15:02, DRB1*15:03 are the unacceptable mismatches for this case; they are associated to a 28% cPRA. A 35-year-old female in chronic hemodialysis, enrolled in the related renal transplantation program Carnitine palmitoyltransferase II with two potential donors (brothers). The donors were typed as identical HLA each other and distinct as regards the recipient (Table 2). The result of the T and B CDC assays were positive to both donors. Four years later, the CDC assays performed with the same donors were negative and flow cytometry crossmatches were positive for T and B cells. The SPA results using current serum showed preformed antibodies directed to a myriad of different

class I and II HLA antigens (cPRA = 91%). The possible immunization events were blood transfusions and three gestations from the same husband, whose HLA typing is shown in Table 2. A closer examination of the SPA results revealed: (i) specific antibodies against the husband’s HLA mismatches, including allele A*02:01 (MFI = 8,994), and (ii) antibodies against potential donors’ HLA antigens, including allele A*68:02 (MFI = 12,353). Because A*02:01 and A*68:02 alleles belong to the same CREG, we reasoned that such alleles could share the same eplet targeted by the recipient’s HLA antibodies. We tested our hypothesis using the EpHLA software analyzing recipient versus immunizer, and then versus potential donors (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6). We found that the recipient HLA antibodies recognize the pair of eplets 142MT + 145KHA.