Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Mar 23.
Published in final edited form as: Circulation. 2021 Jan 13;143(12):1184–1197. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.049098

Figure 5: Distinct %ddcfDNA patterns in AMR and ACR.

Figure 5:

a – c %ddcfDNA against time plots for prototype subjects with acute cellular rejection, “0” = ACR grade 0 or grade 1 and pAMR0

d – f %ddcfDNA against time plots for prototype subjects with antibody-mediated rejection. “0” = ACR grade 0 or grade 1 and pAMR0

g. Trends of %ddcfDNA measures in all patients preceding a histopathologic diagnosis of AMR or ACR; mean and standard deviations are shown. For AMR, there is a longer lead-time and larger quantitative ddcfDNA release of ddcfDNA prior to diagnosis. In addition, 12/15 cases of AMR had elevations of ddcfDNA preceding the clinical diagnosis. In ACR the ddcfDNA elevations preceding clinical diagnosis are rarer (2/17), lower quantitatively and are detected for a shorter time preceding overt diagnosis.

h. Different %ddcfDNA characteristics based on cfDNA length in ACR and AMR. Short DNA fragments were defined based on total read length < 100bp. In AMR, the % short cfDNA fragments is much higher than in ACR or controls without rejection.