Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 515

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Complement Activation in Acute Humoral Renal Allograft Rejection: Diagnostic Significance of C4d Deposits in Peritubular Capillaries

COLLINS, A. BERNARD, SCHNEEBERGER, EVELINE E., PASCUAL, MANUEL A., SAIDMAN, SUSAN L., WILLIAMS, WINFRED W., TOLKOFF-RUBIN, NINA, COSIMI, A. BENEDICT, COLVIN, ROBERT B.·1999·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

The distinction between acute humoral rejection (AHR) and acute cellular rejection (ACR) in renal allografts is therapeutically important, but pathologically difficult. Since AHR is probably mediated by antibodies to the donor endothelium that activate the classical complement pathway, it was hypothesized that peritubular capillary C4d deposition might distinguish this group. Renal biopsies (n = 16) from 10 patients with AHR who had acute graft dysfunction, neutrophils in peritubular capillaries, and a concurrent positive cross-match were stained for C4d by immunofluorescence. Control biopsies for comparison showed ACR (n = 14), cyclosporin A toxicity (n = 6), or no abnormality (n = 4). Peribiopsy sera were tested for anti-donor HLA antibody. C4d deposited prominently and diffusely in the peritubular capillaries in all AHR biopsies (16 of 16). IgM and/or C3 were also present in 19 and 44%, respectively. With two-color immunofluorescence, C4d was localized in basement membranes (type IV collagen+) and in the endothelium (Ulex europaeus agglutinin-I+). In ACR, no more than trace C4d was found in peritubular capillaries (P < 0.0001 versus AHR), and no patient had anti-donor HLA antibodies (0 of 8); 27% had neutrophils in peritubular capillaries. One of six biopsies with cyclosporin A toxicity had similar C4d deposits, and circulating anti-donor class I antibody was detected. Grafts with AHR were lost (40%) more often than those with ACR (0%; P < 0.02). C4d in peritubular capillary walls distinguishes AHR from ACR, is more specific and sensitive than traditional criteria, and is a potentially valuable adjunct in the diagnosis of graft dysfunction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1681/asn.v10102208

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 515

Metadata

Authors
COLLINS, A. B., SCHNEEBERGER, E. E., PASCUAL, M. A., SAIDMAN, S. L., WILLIAMS, W. W., TOLKOFF-RUBIN, N., COSIMI, A. B., & COLVIN, R. B.
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
1999-10
Volume
10
Issue
10
Pages
2208-2214
ISSN
1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1906278494
Cited by
515
References
0
FWCI
15.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complement Activation in Acute Humoral Renal Allograft Rejection: Diagnostic Significance of C4d Deposits in Peritubular Capillaries. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1681/asn.v10102208
The paper
COLLINS, A. B., SCHNEEBERGER, E. E., PASCUAL, M. A., SAIDMAN, S. L., WILLIAMS, W. W., TOLKOFF-RUBIN, N., COSIMI, A. B., & COLVIN, R. B. (1999). Complement Activation in Acute Humoral Renal Allograft Rejection: Diagnostic Significance of C4d Deposits in Peritubular Capillaries. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1681/asn.v10102208

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.