Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0273745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273745

Biomarkers of sickle cell nephropathy in Senegal

El Hadji Malick Ndour 1,2,*, Khuthala Mnika 3,4, Fatou Guèye Tall 1,2, Moussa Seck 5, Indou Dème Ly 2, Victoria Nembaware 3, Gaston Kuzamunu Mazandu 3, Hélène Ange Thérèse Sagna Bassène 2, Rokhaya Dione 2, Aliou Abdoulaye Ndongo 6, Jean Pascal Demba Diop 7, Nènè Oumou Kesso Barry 1, Moustapha Djité 1, Rokhaya Ndiaye Diallo 7, Papa Madièye Guèye 1, Saliou Diop 5, Ibrahima Diagne 8, Aynina Cissé 1, Ambroise Wonkam 3,9, Philomène Lopez Sall 1,2
Editor: Donovan Anthony McGrowder10
PMCID: PMC9678278  PMID: 36409722

Abstract

Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is caused by a single point variation in the β-globin gene (HBB): c.20A> T (p.Glu7Val), in homozygous state. SCA is characterized by sickling of red blood cells in small blood vessels which leads to a range of multiorgan complications, including kidney dysfunction. This case-control study aims at identifying sickle cell nephropathy biomarkers in a group of patients living with SCA from Senegal. A total of 163 patients living with SCA and 177 ethnic matched controls were investigated. Biological phenotyping included evaluation of glycemia, glucosuria, albuminuria, proteinuria, tubular proteinuria, serum creatinine, urine creatinine, urine specific gravity and glomerular filtration rate. Descriptive statistics of biomarkers were performed using the χ2 –test, with the significance level set at p<0.05. Patients living with SCA had a median age of 20 years (range 4 to 57) with a female sex frequency of 53.21%. The median age of the control participants was 29 years (range: 4–77) with a female sex frequency of 66.09%. The following proportions of abnormal biological indices were observed in SCA patients versus (vs.) controls, as follows: hyposthenuria: 35.3%vs.5.2% (p<0.001); glomerular hyperfiltration: 47.66%vs.19.75% (p<0.001), renal insufficiency: 5.47%vs.3.82% (p = 0.182); microalbuminuria: 42.38%vs.5.78% (p<0.001); proteinuria: 39.33%vs.4.62% (p<0.001); tubular proteinuria: 40.97%vs.4.73% (p<0.001) and microglucosuria: 22.5%vs.5.1% (p<0.001). This study shows a relatively high proportion of SCA nephropathy among patients living with SCA in Senegal. Microglucosuria, proteinuria, tubular proteinuria, microalbuminuria, hyposthenuria and glomerular hyperfiltration are the most prevalent biomarkers of nephropathy in this group of Senegalese patients with SCA.

Introduction

Sickle cell disease (SCD) refers to a collection of inherited blood disorders that feature the propensity for erythrocytes to change into crescent or so-called sickle shapes [1]. It is an hemoglobinopathy with autosomal recessive transmission caused by a single nucleotide substitution NM_000518.5:c.20A>T of the β-globin gene (HBB-rs334), located on the short arm of chromosome 11 (11p15.4) [2, 3]. The variation results in an amino-acid replacement NP_000509.1:p.Glu7Val of the β-globin chain of tetrameric hemoglobin (α2β2) in adults NM_000518.5 (HBB):c.20A>T(p.Glu7Val) [1, 2]. Sickle cell anemia (SCA) refers to the disease which results from the homozygous expression of the βS allele (βS/βS genotype) [4].

SCD is considered to be the most common monogenic disease in the world [5]. It is estimated that 305,800 children in the world, of whom 85% in sub-Saharan Africa, are born with SCD each year, and this number could reach 404,200 in 2050 [5]. Senegal is a country in sub-Saharan West Africa with a population of approximately 16,209,125 of which up to 2% are SCD patients [6, 7]. Three centers specializing in lifelong medical treatment for SCD patients have been established, but there is no universal newborns screening yet and very few patients are exposed to hydroxycarbamide. There is no universal medical insurance coverage and care for SCD patients is thus paid for by family members in this developing country where poverty affects from 24.9% of the population living in Dakar the capital to 77.5% of the rural population of the region of Kolda [8]. Therefore, the financial burden is heavy and the necessary medical care is often out of reach, and patients suffer from multiple SCD complications albeit the vast majority of the patients show the Senegal haplotype (XmnI-rs7482144) bearing the C>T single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at position –158 of the Gγ- globin gene (HBG2:g.-158C>T or NM_000184.2(HBG2):c.-211C>T) which is associated with higher fetal hemoglobin (HbF) levels known to result in a less severe clinical expression of SCD [3, 4].

Patients living with SCD may exhibit multiple organ damage including kidney dysfunction that may be structural and/or functional [9]. These glomerular and/or tubular renal damages prove to be age dependent [9]. In early childhood, kidney dysfunction is mainly glomerular hyperfiltration characterized by increased glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and loss of urinary concentration ability through the Henle’s loop of juxtaglomerular nephrons resulting in hyposthenuria (i.e. a decrease in urine specific gravity (USG) is described [9]. In childhood, albuminuria stage A2 (microalbuminuria) is the most observed kidney dysfunction in SCD patients [9]. In adulthood, albuminuria stage A3 (macroalbuminuria) begins to develop and may be associated with renal insufficiency (i.e. a decrease in GFR) [9]. End-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis and / or kidney transplantation occurs in 4–18% of SCD patients [10]. The average survival time after the onset of ESRD is 4 years, and 40% of SCD patients die after 20 months of dialysis [11].

However, in Africa, particularly in Senegal, only few studies have been carried out on renal manifestations of SCD, mainly on albuminuria and glomerular hyperfiltration and the available studies have been centered in patients with very low proportion of Senegal haplotype [1215]. It is anticipated that early diagnosis of kidney dysfunction would allow early therapeutic intervention that could delay the onset of ESRD and increase the life expectancy of SCD patients [13].

Thus, the main objective of this study is to identify biomarkers of nephropathy that could be used for anticipatory guidance, and affordable routine clinical assessment of Senegalese patients living with sickle cell anemia (SCA).

Results

Among 394 recruited subjects 164 (41.62%) were HBB-rs334 T (sickle mutation) in homozygous state, 49 (12.44%) in heterozygous state and 181 (45.94%) were HBB-rs334 A in homozygous state. One of the 164 βSS patients and four of the 181 βAA one were excluded from the study because of hyperglycemia as well as the 49 βSA subjects. A total of 163 SCA patients and 177 ethnic matched controls without diabetes were therefore included in our series. Among the selected SCA patients 79 (63.71%) were Senegal haplotype and 45 (27.61%) were matched in age and sex with 45 of the 177 controls. Tables 1 and 2 summarize anthropometric and biochemical characteristics of the study participants. The median age of controls was 29 years [range 4–77]. Women were more represented than men in this control group with a frequency of 66.09% (n = 115) ‘‘Table 1“. The control group consisted of 19.05% (n = 32) children and 80.95% (n = 136) adults. SCA patients had a median age of 20 years [range 4–57] with a female sex frequency of 53.21% (n = 83) in the SCA group ‘‘Table 2“. SCA patients group was composed of 52.08% (n = 75) children and 47.92% (n = 69) adults.

Table 1. Description of anthropometric and biochemical parameters of controls.

Controls without sickle cell anemia and diabetes (n = 177)
Median (min—max) 5 – 95th percentiles Observations
Age, years 29 (4–77) 10–61 168
Female sex, % (n) 66.09% (115) XXX 174
BMI, kg/m2 22.38 (10.56–49.61) 13.52–34.02 162
SBP, mmHg 120 (90–160) 100–140 100
DBP, mmHg 70 (50–90) 60–80 100
Hb, g/dl 13.3 (7.4–18.2) 10.2–16.2 170
Glycemia, mg/dl 84 (70–110) 73–98 170
BUN, mg/dl 8 (2.5–31.5) 5–14 162
Serum creatinine, mg/dl 0.78 (0.23–7.36) 0.38–1.4 166
Urine creatinine, mg/dl 227 (22–886) 76–486 174
GFR, ml/min/1.73m2 114.41 (10.85–200.37) 68.28–160.60 157
Albuminuria (UACR, mg/g) 6.52 (1.28–139.07) 2.62–32.43 173
Proteinuria (UPCR, mg/g) 44.74 (9.21–530.27) 15.07–181.48 173
Glucosuria (UGCR, mg/g) 0 (0–52) 0–20 176
USG 1.020 (1.004–1.035) 1.010–1.028 154

SBP, mmHg. DBP, mmHg. Hb, g/dl (x 0.6206 mmol/l). Glycemia, mg/dl (x 0.0555 mmol/l). BUN, mg/dl (x 0.357 mmol/l). Serum creatinine, mg/dl (x 88.4 μmol/l). Urine creatinine, mg/dl (x 88.4 μmol/l). UACR, mg/g (x 0.113 mg/mmol). UPCR, mg/g (x 0.113 mg/mmol). UGCR, mg/g (x 0.625 μmol/mmol).

Min: minimum. Max: maximum. BMI: body mass index. SBP: systolic blood pressure. DBP: diastolic blood pressure. Hb: hemoglobin. BUN: blood urea nitrogen. GFR: glomerular filtration rate is determined using Schwartz formula in children and adolescents and CKD-EPI formula in adults. UPCR: urinary protein /creatinine ratio. UACR: urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. UGCR: urinary glucose/creatinine ratio. USG: urine specific gravity.

Table 2. Description of anthropometric and biochemical parameters of sickle cell anemia patients.

Sickle cell anemia patients without diabetes (n = 163)
Median (min—max) 5 – 95th percentiles Observations
Age, years 20 (4–57) 6–38 144
Female sex, % (n) 53.21% (83) XXX 156
BMI, kg/m2 18 (11.24–33.71) 13.15–26.04 128
SBP, mmHg 110 (80–140) 90–140 101
DBP, mmHg 70 (40–110) 50–80 101
Hb, g/dl 8.4 (5.1–11.6) 6.6–11 148
Glycemia, mg/dl 85 (60–108) 71–101 152
BUN, mg/dl 6.5 (2.5–54.5) 4–10.5 143
Serum creatinine, mg/dl 0.57 (0.13–1.58) 0.27–0.99 151
Urine creatinine, mg/dl 88 (16–679) 37–233 152
GFR, ml/min/1.73m2 136.96 (38.31–407.84) 58.51–196.80 129
Albuminuria (UACR, mg/g) 25.67 (2.64–328.65) 6.86–122.63 151
Proteinuria (UPCR, mg/g) 156.67 (17.24–2957.84) 29.41–1388.76 150
Glucosuria (UGCR, mg/g) 5 (0–7370) 0–193 151
USG 1.012 (1.001–1.025) 1.007–1.020 153

SBP, mmHg. DBP, mmHg. Hb, g/dl (x 0.6206 mmol/l). Glycemia, mg/dl (x 0.0555 mmol/l). BUN, mg/dl (x 0.357 mmol/l). Serum creatinine, mg/dl (x 88.4 μmol/l). Urine creatinine, mg/dl (x 88.4 μmol/l). UACR, mg/g (x 0.113 mg/mmol). UPCR, mg/g (x 0.113 mg/mmol). RGCU, mg/g (x 0.625 μmol/mmol).

Min: minimum. Max: maximum. BMI: body mass index. SBP: systolic blood pressure. DBP: diastolic blood pressure. Hb: hemoglobin. BUN: blood urea nitrogen. GFR: glomerular filtration rate is determined using Schwartz formula in children and adolescents and CKD-EPI formula in adults. UPCR: urinary protein /creatinine ratio. UACR: urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. UGCR: urinary glucose/creatinine ratio. USG: urine specific gravity.

The median serum creatinine observed in 166 controls was 0.78 mg/dl (68.95 μmol/l) [range 0.23–7.36 (20.33–650.62)] with 90% (n = 150) of this group having serum creatinine between 0.38 (33.59 μmol/l) and 1.4 mg/dl (123.76 μmol/l) ‘‘Table 1“. The reference intervals of serum creatinine obtained from the controls of our series are therefore 0.78 mg/dl (68.95 μmol/l) [range 0.38–1.4 (33.59–123.76)] ‘‘Table 1“. The mean serum creatinine level was significantly reduced in SCA compared to controls [0.59±0.23 (52.15±20.33) versus 0.86±0.60 (76.02±53.04) mg/dl (μmol/l); p < 0.001] ‘‘Table 3“. The median glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was 136.96 ml/min /1.73m2 [range 58.51–196.80] for SCA patients and 114.41 ml/min/1.73m2 [range 68.28–160.60] for controls ‘‘Tables 1 and 2“. The median urinary specific gravity (USG) was 1.012 [range: 1.007–1.020] and USG was ≤ 1.015 in 90.2% (n = 138) of SCA patients ‘‘Tables 2 and 4“. In controls, the 5th percentile of USG was 1.010 ‘‘Table 1“. The 95th percentile for albuminuria, proteinuria and glucosuria were respectively 32.43 mg/g (3.66 mg/mmol), 181.48 mg/g (20.51 mg/mmol) and 20 mg/g (12.5 μmol/mmol) in the control group ‘‘Table 1“.

Table 3. Comparison of means of anthropometric and biochemical parameters between sickle cell anemia patients and unmatched controls and then age- and sex-matched controls.

  SS Controls SS Controls
(n = 163) (n = 177) (n = 45) (n = 45)
Mean±SD Mean±SD p-value Mean±SD Mean±SD p-value
or % (n) or % (n) or % (n) or % (n)
Age, years 20.4±10.2 32.1±15.3 < 0.001 21.4±10.4 21.4±10.4 1
Female sex, % (n) 53.21%(83) 66.09%(115) 0.017 64.44%(29) 64.44%(29) 1
BMI, kg/m2 19.1± 6.8 22.9±6.8 < 0.001 19.6±7.5 21,5±6.8 0.079
SBP, mmHg 112±13.0 117±13.5 0.0041 112±11.5 118±10.1 0.076
DBP, mmHg 69±11.2 72.5±8.0 0.0085 72.5±10.6 73.5±7.9 0.396
Hb, g/dl 8.57±1.47 13.38±1.8 < 0.001 8.69±1.43 13.05±1.87 < 0.001
Glycemia, mg/dl 85±9 86±8 0.71 85±7 86±10 0.447
BUN, mg/dl 7±4.5 9±3.5 < 0.001 6.5±2 8.5±2.5 < 0.001
Serum creatinine, mg/dl 0.59±0.23 0.86±0.60 < 0.001 0.58±0.21 0.75±0.32 0.0085

SBP, mmHg. DBP, mmHg. Hb, g/dl (x 0.6206 mmol/l). Glycemia, mg/dl (x 0.0555 mmol/l). BUN, mg/dl (x 0.357 mmol/l). Serum creatinine, mg/dl (x 88.4 μmol/l).

SS: sickle cell anemia patients without diabetes. Controls: subjects without sickle cell anemia and diabetes. BMI: body mass index. SBP: systolic blood pressure. DBP: diastolic blood pressure. Hb: hemoglobin. BUN: blood urea nitrogen.

Table 4. Comparison of disturbances of nephropathy biomarkers between sickle cell anemia patients and controls.

  SS Controls  
(n = 163) (n = 177)  
% (n) % (n) p-value Odds ratio
Hyposthenuria 35.3% (54) 5.2% (8) < 0.001 9.95 [4.43–25.12]
Glomerular hyperfiltration 47.66% (61) 19.75% (31) < 0.001 3.64 [2–6.64]
Normal glomerular filtration 35.94% (46) 54.14% (85) NA NA
Glomerular hypofiltration 10.94% (14) 22.29% (35) 0.407 NA
Renal insufficiency 5.47% (7) 3.82% (6) 0.182  NA
Microalbuminuria 42.38% (64) 5.78% (10) < 0.001 11.99 [5.71–27.33]
Proteinuria 39.33% (59) 4.62% (8) < 0.001 13.37 [5.97–33.59]
Glomerular proteinuria 0 0 NA NA
Tubular proteinuria 40.97% (59) 4.73% (8) < 0.001 13.97 [6.22–35.15]
Microglucosuria 22.5% (34) 5.1% (9) < 0.001 5.39 [2.41–13.21]

SS: sickle cell anemia patients without diabetes. Controls: subjects without sickle cell anemia, sickle cell trait and diabetes. NA: not applicable.

Comparison of prevalence of biological indices abnormalities between SCA patients and unmatched controls showed that SCA was associated with kidney dysfunction ‘‘Table 4“. The following proportions of abnormal biological indices of kidney dysfunction were observed in SCA patients versus controls, as follows: hyposthenuria: 35.3% versus 5.2% (p < 0.001); glomerular hyperfiltration: 47.66% versus 19.75% (p < 0.001), glomerular hypofiltration: 10.94% versus 22.29% (p = 0.407); renal insufficiency: 5.47% versus 3.82% (p = 0.182); microalbuminuria (albuminuria stage A2): 42.38% versus 5.78% (p<0.001); proteinuria: 39.33% versus 4.62% (p < 0.001); tubular proteinuria: 40.97% versus 4.73% (p < 0.001) and microglucosuria: 22.5% versus 5.1% (p < 0.001) ‘‘Table 4“. Glomerular proteinuria was absent in both groups ‘‘Table 4“. Macroalbuminuria (albuminuria stage A3) was only observed in one ten-year-old female child in SCA patients group. Furthermore, SCA appears as a risk factor of kidney dysfunction biomarkers disruption if the odds ratio (OR) was taken into account ‘‘Table 4“. The association between SCA and kidney dysfunction was confirmed by comparing kidney dysfunction biomarkers between SCA patients and controls matched in age and sex ‘‘Table 5“.

Table 5. Comparison of disturbances of nephropathy biomarkers between sickle cell anemia patients and age- and sex-matched controls.

  SS Controls  
(n = 45) (n = 45)  
% (n) % (n) p-value Odds ratio
Hyposthenuria 35.71% (15) 2.44% (1) < 0.001 22 [3 – 958]
Glomerular hyperfiltration 45.24% (19) 21.43% (9) 0.049 2.73 [0.89–8.61]
Normal glomerular filtration 40.48% (17) 52.38%(22) NA NA
Glomerular hypofiltration 11.90% (5) 23.81%(10) 0.492 NA
Renal insufficiency 2.38%(1) 2.38%(1) 0.86 NA
Microalbuminuria 47.73% (21) 8.89% (4) < 0.001 9.36 [2.64–41.02]
Proteinuria 37.21% (16) 2.22% (1) < 0.001 26.07 [3.5–1117.4]
Glomerular proteinuria 0 0 NA NA
Tubular proteinuria 39.02% (16) 2.22% (1) < 0.001 28.2 [3.8–1206.7]
Microglucosuria 25% (11) 6.67% (3) 0.018 4.67 [1.09–27.69]

SS: sickle cell anemia patients without diabetes. Controls: subjects without sickle cell anemia, sickle cell trait and diabetes. NA: not applicable.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate kidney dysfunction in a group of patients living with SCA from Senegal. It has revealed a relatively high proportion of patients with a broad spectrum of abnormal biological indices of kidney dysfunction. This was, to some extent, unexpected as most patients had the relatively favorable Senegal haplotype. This research will contribute in filling the gap in the investigation of kidney dysfunction in an African cohort. It has emphasized the need to improve prevention and care for all SCD patients in Africa regardless of their genetic and regional background.

Controls were recruited at random without an attempt to discriminate between age and sex with the cases. This recruitment protocol was due to three reasons. First, it was due to the difficulties associated with the recruitment of healthy controls in our low and middle income country (LMIC). Healthy individuals are not used to doing health check-ups as the latter are believed to be expensive. The few people benefiting from health check-ups are employees of a few companies or those applying for substantial loans from the bank. Companies or banks deal directly with clinics or laboratories in the private sector that are not involved in research activities. In our deserted blood centers, we avoid asking volunteer blood donors to participate in study protocols for fear of frightening them away. It was thus necessary to collaborate with associations of medical students to organize free medical campaigns in two popular suburbs of Dakar with logistic support from the local public authorities. The healthy individuals coming to consult were asked to participate in the study on the basis of an informed consent. In this context, it is difficult to sort the controls to be included. Also, the recruitment protocol was necessary to mainly define a cut-off for microglucosuria. For this purpose, it should be computed on the 5th and 95th glucosuria percentile of at least 120 Senegalese people recruited at random who, supposedly were healthy individuals sharing the same genetic background (had the same ethnic origins) and lived in the same environmental conditions as the sickle cell patients [16, 17]. This exercise was essential to establishing the values of the glucosuria tailored to our context, which could be considered as pathological in the absence of a cut-off of a consensus as it existed for the albuminuria. Thirdly, the recruitment protocol was supposed to help us to establish the prevalence of reliable data of kidney dysfunction in both SCA patients and the controls. If we had, since the beginning, used matching in lieu of open recruitment, it would have skewed, distorted any kidney dysfunction prevalence as a result. It is for such reasons that we have conducted a two-step comparison: we first compared the SCA patients with the controls without paying attention to age and sex and in a second step, we have compared the SCA patients and their paired controls’ age and sex.

The recruitment protocol explains the age and sex differences between the two groups and may also have had an impact on the comparative analysis results of the biological indices in ‘‘Tables 3 and 4‘ of the first comparison. As the controls were significantly older than the cases, the proportion of kidney dysfunction should be higher in the control than in the case group because of the deleterious effects of aging on the kidneys. But, kidney dysfunction was significantly more common among the sickle cell patients than among the controls. To verify whether the differences noted in this first comparison did not result from a possible bias introduced by the case-control age and sex differences, we made a second comparison. This involved a subgroup of cases matched on age and sex to a subgroup of controls without any statistically significant difference regarding the body mass index. This second comparison involving a smaller sample confirmed the results obtained with the first comparison ‘‘Tables 3 and 5“.

The study focused on biomarkers of functional impairment of the kidney. It is believed to be the first Senegalese study to assess the renal concentrating ability during SCA. The loss of renal concentrating ability is supposed to be the most common kidney dysfunction in SCA [1820]. It results in a hyposthenuria which can be demonstrated using various methods [2023]. In our study, refractometry has enabled us to find among SCA patients a median urine specific gravity (USG) of 1.012, i.e. 480 milliosmoles superimposable on the one reported for an American population living with SCA of 1.0125 (502 milliosmoles) and a Jamaican one of 1.010 (400 milliosmoles) ‘‘Table 2“[20, 23]. Hyposthenuria was defined in our study by a USG lower or equal to the 5th percentile of the control USGs i.e. by a USG ≤ 1.010 which is equivalent to 400 milliosmoles according to the equation mOsm/kgH2O = (USG -1,000) x 40,000 where mOsm/kgH2O represents the urine osmolality and USG the urine specific gravity ‘‘Table 1“[24]. Yet, 400 milliosmoles represents the maximum concentrating ability of the cortical nephrons and the minimum concentrating ability of the juxta-glomerular nephrons [22]. Hyposthenuria was found among 35.3% of the SCA patients of the series ‘‘Table 4“. This should mean that these SCA patients supposedly lost their vasa recta which, in association with the juxta-medullar nephrons, ensure through the mechanism of counter-current multiplication, the concentration of urine above 400 milliosmoles [9, 22]. Losses of vasa recta by hyposthenuric SCA patients has already been demonstrated by microradioangiography [22]. It is believed to be caused by the fact that the medullar environment is hypertonic, hypoxic and acidic. It is therefore conducive to the sickled shape of the erythrocytes containing hemoglobin S. This may result in occlusions, ischemia and micro-infarcti which, in the long run cause the vasa recta to be destroyed (i.e., in fine in the loss of the renal concentrating ability) among SCA patients [9, 18, 25, 26]. It appears therefore that determining regularly the urine specific gravity has all its importance in the monitoring of sickle cell anemia in that it gives us an insight into the degree of destruction of the vasa recta and allows for the use of a treatment which could slow down the progression of the loss of these vessels, the integrity of which is essential to maintain a normal renal ability to concentrate urine.

In addition, occlusion of the vasa recta is said to trigger the release of such vasodilator substances as prostaglandins that are supposed to cause disturbances in glomerular filtration in sickle cell patients [9, 25, 26]. Many studies, in Africa and elsewhere, have focused on the variations of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) during the sickle cell disease since the GFR is deemed to be the best global index of the kidney function. Two different formulas were used to determine GFR because they are not interchangeable within an age group. The GFR median observed in the series’ SCA patients is superimposable on the ones described earlier with some Senegalese (130 ml/min/1.73m2), Malian (133 ml/min/1.73m2), Cameroonian (135.1 ml/min/1.73m2), Ghanaian (136.09 ml/min/1.73m2), Jamaican (137 ml/min/1.73m2) and American (133 ml/min/1.73m2) (140.7 ml/min/1.73m2) SCA patients [13, 23, 2729]. It is higher than the one reported with SCA patients from India (104.47 ml/min/1.73 m2) [30]. It looks as if an increased GFR is frequent among SCA patients with the exception of the ones from India. This difference might find an explanation in that India is one of the cradles of the Arab-Indian haplotype, considered to be the haplotype associated with the highest levels of HbF that blocks erythrocytes sickle shaping, a basic step in the physiopathology of sickle cell nephropathy.

The study has assessed the proportion of SCA patients with a glomerular hyperfiltration. For want of a threshold consensus, the glomerular hyperfiltration (GHF) was defined by a GFR > 140 ml/min/1.73m2 regardless of age or gender, similar to the approach taken by some authors [3032]. The prevalence of GHF among the series SCA patients is believed to be comparable to the ones reported with American SCA patients from Tennessee (47%), with SCA patients from Cameroon (49.5%), in the Sickle Cell Disease Center in Paris Tenon Hospital (51%), Subsaharan Africa and the French West Indies (53.1%) and Brazil (53%) [15, 3336]. On the other hand, it is believed to be lower than the one described for the American SCA patients from Massachusetts (66%) but it is higher than those of Indian SCA patients (16%) [30, 37]. It appears that glomerular hyperfiltration is common with SCA patients. The differences between the reported prevalence could be attributed to variability in the methods of determining the levels of creatinine and GFR used by the various authors, for want of a threshold consensus on the definition of GHF that can sometimes be very low (GFR > 120 ml/min/1.73m2), to the age difference between the patients and to the influence of the haplotypes. With time, GHF might lead to renal insufficiency [38].

The prevalence of renal insufficiency, defined by a GFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 was then assessed. The prevalence of renal insufficiency recorded with the SCA patients of the series was superimposable on the ones found with the American SCA patients of Massachussetts (4%) and of Tennessee (5.1%) and among SCA patients of Brazil (5.1%) and India (5.68%) [33, 36, 37]. This comparable prevalence observed in patients with different haplotypes and living in different geographic regions could mean both factors do not have a significant effect on the onset of renal insufficiency in SCA patients.

Eventually, of all the studied kidney functional alterations, only hyposthenuria and glomerular hyperfiltration appeared to be attributable to SCA. A theory to explain the occurrence of GHF in SCA has already been formulated [9, 25]. We, nevertheless, are proposing a new one. Glomerular hyperfiltration might result from a failed attempt to correct hyposthenuria using the macula densa cells. Indeed, at the physiological state, a reduced GFR following a fall of the blood pressure, causes a reduced tubular osmolality [39]. In response to the hypo-osmolality detected by their osmoreceptors, the macula densa cells trigger the tubulo-glomerular feedback mechanism and initiate hormonal regulation with the effect of increasing blood pressure and therefore GFR [39]. Among SCA patients, the macula densa cells of the juxta-glomerular nephrons trigger these two regulatory mechanisms of the glomerular blood pressure in response to the tubular hypo-osmolality in order to correct a hypothetical reduction of the GFR. This has, as a consequence a glomerular hyperfiltration as the origin of the tubular hypo-osmolality detected by their osmoreceptors is not a lower GFR but rather the juxtaglomerular nephrons’ loss of their ability to concentrate urine, following a destruction of the vasa recta at the renal medullar level.

Just like with the functional alteration biomarkers, the study showed interest in the biomarkers of kidney structural damages notably in albuminuria, proteinuria and its glomerular and/or tubular origins as well as in glucosuria.

The albuminuria was assayed by an immunoturbidimetrical method using antibodies that help to specifically target albumin among urinary proteins. In the series controls, the 95th percentile of albuminuria (RACU) was 32.43 mg/g and is therefore supposed to be superimposable on the lower conventional limit that defines microalbuminuria (30 mg/g) ‘‘Table 1“. Considering the conventional definition, albuminuria stage A2 or microalbuminuria’s prevalence is comparable to the one you can find in a multicenter study of Michigan US children and/or teenage (46%), American adult (43,5%), Georgian American (42%), French from Subsaharan Africa and French West Indian (41.5%), Port Harcourt Nigerian (42.7%) and Brazilian (39%) patients with SCA [27, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41]. It is, on the other hand, higher than those reported with some Americans of Ohio (34%), Jamaicans (26%), Nigerians (26%), Saudi children and adolescents (28.9%), and Saudi adults (25%) living with SCD [20, 23, 4244]. It is, however, lower than the one obtained with Cameroonian SCD patients (60.9%) [15]. As for albuminuria stage A3, it was only noted in our series in a ten-year-old girl with the SCA (a prevalence of 0.61% (1/163)). The albuminuria stage A3 or macroalbuminuria’s prevalence was found to be comparable to that recorded among Ugandan living with the SCD (1.31%) [45]. It is, on the other hand, lower than the ones described for American SCD patients of Georgia (26%) and Ohio (6%) [20, 38]. The American study in Georgia has the highest albuminuria stage A3 prevalence because the Bantu haplotype, which is the acutest haplotype of the 5 (five) described haplotypes is widely represented in the study of the Georgian population. The large number of reported prevalence cases of pathological albuminuria is believed to illustrate a wide acceptance of this parameter as a biomarker for an early diagnosis of kidney dysfunction in the SCD. The variations of the prevalence between the countries and sometimes within the same country reported by the various teams might be explained by the patients’ age, the different methods for determining albuminuria, the patients’ living environment and/or their genetic backgrounds. Concerning clinical significance, albuminuria stage A3 always points to a glomerulopathy but the glomerular and/or tubular origin of albuminuria stage A2 has not yet been clearly established with the SCD patients [38].

Proteinuria was assessed in the study. It was assayed using the pyrogallol–molybdate red method, which is a non-specific spectrocolorimetric method that allows for the simultaneous determination of all the proteins present in the urine, including albumin [46]. In a healthy subject, proteinuria (RPCU) may reach 180 mg/g [47]. The 95th percentile proteinuria in the study controls is superimposable on the upper limit of the RPCU since it reached 181.48 mg/g ‘‘Table 1“. Proteinuria is deemed to be pathological when it exceeds 200 mg/g in the urine from one voiding [48]. So did the prevalence of pathological proteinuria, or simpler, of proteinuria reach among the SCA patients of the series a value superimposable on the ones reported for some Ghanaian (40.8%), Saudi (41%) and American children from Baltimore (41%), with SCA [29, 49, 50]. It should be worth noting that the American study assayed the proteinuria in all the urine testing negative by dipstick whereas the Ghanaian study only used the test trip to determine the proteinuria. The prevalence of the series’ proteinuria, on the other hand is higher than the ones reported with the Ghanaian (2.8%), the Carolinas American (6.2% with the children and 12% with the adolescents), Kuwaiti (13.6%) and adult Nigerian (28%) SCD patients [5155]. The common ground for these 4 studies is that they have either used the test strip to determine the proteinuria or only measured the urinary proteins when the test strip screen was positive, with the exception of the Kuwaiti study. The lack of sensitiveness of the test strips exacerbated by the diluted urine resulting from the loss of the renal concentrating ability in these sickle cell patients explain the low prevalence noted in these studies. The Kuwaiti study has determined the 24-hour proteinuria with all the patients [53]. As a consequence, the low prevalence of the reported proteinuria in this study is basically due to the greatest representativeness in this region of the Arab-Indian haplotype. Proteinuria is thus a pertinent biomarker of kidney dysfunction in Senegalese living with SCA. Therefore, the evaluation of its glomerular or tubular origin on the basis of its albumin composition should prove particularly interesting. In this study, it is the RACU/RPCU ratio that has been used to situate the glomerular or tubular origin of the proteinuria. Proteinuria was, as expected, physiological (RPCU ≤ 200 mg/g) and mainly of tubular origin (RACU/ RPCU < 59%) with 95.27% of the controls. No pathological proteinuria (RPCU > 200 mg/g) was of glomerular origin (RACU/ RPCU ≥ 59%) either with the controls or with the sickle cell patients. On the other hand, some pathological proteinuria (RPCU > 200 mg/g) of tubular origin (RACU/ RPCU < 59%) were registered with 40.97% of the sickle cell patients and with 4.73% of the controls with a significant difference (p < 0.001) ‘‘Table 4“. As a result, sickle cell anemia is only associated with tubular proteinuria. This was due to the fact that the sickle cell disease is associated with a chronic hemolytic anemia, as is witnessed by the rate of low hemoglobin of the SCA patients ‘‘Table 3“. During hemolysis, the hemoglobin released in the plasma passes through the glomerular barrier [56]. It competes with the filtered proteins, notably with the albumin, on the megalin and cubulin receptors expressed by the cells of the proximal convoluted tubule (PCT) to be reabsorbed [56]. Thus, albumin and low molecular weight proteins can be found in the urine and cause albuminuria stage A2 and, more generally, a proteinuria of tubular origin [56]. In addition, the catabolism of hemoglobin, of the hem in particular, captured by the cells of the PCT causes the formation of toxic oxygenated free radicals for the tubular cells [57]. The cells so damaged might no longer play a part in the reabsorption of the proteins, as well as in the filtered glucose, promoting thereby the onset of the tubular proteinuria, albuminuria stage A2, even glucosuria.

To verify the presence of these renal tubular damages, we assessed a parameter we called microglucosuria or pauciglucosuria. This parameter was defined as a higher or equal glucosuria to the 95th percentile of the controls’ RGCU (i.e.an RGCU ≥ 20 mg/g) but could not be detected by the test strips and which was not a consequence of hyperglycemia ‘‘Table 1“. Thus, the prevalence of the microglucosuria for SCA patients is believed to be superimposable to the prevalence of the increase of the urinary low molecular weight proteins which are biomarkers of the injuries in the proximal convoluted tubule. It notably includes an 18% prevalence of hyper-β2-microglobulinemia reported with Turkish SCD patients and a 16% prevalence of an increase of retinol binding protein (RBP) with some American SCA adolescents of Baltimore (16%) [50, 58]. Microglucosuria is thus a biomarker of proximal convoluted tubular damages in sickle cell disease. It is also an argument for the tubular origin of both albuminuria stage A2 and proteinuria in SCD patients. Marsenic O et al. reported that 15% of their series SCA patients with a proteinuria showed concurrently an increase of RBP [50]. As for Sundaram et al., they noted a vigorous association between albuminuria and N-acetyl-glucosaminidase (NAG), a lysosomal enzyme released by the damaged cells of the proximal convoluted tubule [20].

This study presents some limitations. Indeed, it was impossible to assess whether the biomarkers were transiently or permanently disturbed since this was a case-control study. In addition, odds ratios, which are very high in some cases, should reflect the presence of confounding factors that only a multivariate analysis could remove. Moreover, the serologic assays of the hepatitis B virus, Streptococcus pneumoniae or Schistosoma haematobium had have not been carried out though these pathogens may cause the kidney dysfunction in some controls or patients with SCA. Another limitation is selection of control group, it is open to biais, especially sex and age one. At last, GFRs are presented together while formulas used to compute them was different between child and adults.

In conclusion, this study showed a relatively high proportion of SCA nephropathies among patients living with SCA in Senegal. The study highlights that hyposthenuria, glomerular hyperfiltration, albuminuria stage A2, tubular proteinuria and microglucosuria could be relevant biomarkers of sickle cell nephropathy. It has revealed a biomarker, microglucosuria, which could be used as well as the urinary albumin/total protein ratio in association with proteinuria for screening kidney dysfunction in sickle cell anemia patients. The study to identify anthropometric, clinico-biological, genetic and even environmental risk factors that predispose these biomarkers to disturbances will be necessary to be able to identify patients at-risk and allow early detection and the therapeutic management of sickle cell nephropathy.

Materials and methods

The study protocol complied with the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration and was approved by the Research Ethics Committee from Dakar Cheikh Anta Diop University (0312/2018/CER/UCAD) and by the Faculty of Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee from University of Cape Town (HREC RE: 661/2015). Participation was subjected to the free and informed consent of subjects who were at least 18 years old and parents or guardians of those under 18 years.

This was a case-control study that included SCA patients without diabetes (SS) and controls with no detectable SCA, sickle cell trait and diabetes.

Patients with SCA were recruited in Dakar (Senegal) at the National Blood Transfusion Center «Centre National de Transfusion Sanguine (CNTS)», the reference care center for adults with SCA; and the Ambulatory Care Unit for Children and Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease «Unité de Soins Ambulatoires des enfants et adolescents atteints de Drépanocytose (USAD)» located at the Albert Royer National University Children’s Hospital « Centre Hospitalier National d’Enfants Albert Royer (CHEAR) », the largest care unit for children and adolescents with SCA in Senegal. The control participants were recruited at random during two campaigns of free medical consultations organized in two suburbs of Dakar. Patients with SCA were included in the study if they were already enrolled in the sickle cell adult or children cohort, at least 4 years of age, at a routine fasting visit, and in steady state health. SCA patients or controls were defined as adults when they were more than 20 years old. They were classified as children when they were under 20 years old. The exclusion criteria included those in a pain crisis and/or with diabetes. Samples from control participants were collected when they were apparently healthy and at least 4 years old. Control participants were excluded from the study when their hemoglobin solubility test was positive and their HBB genotype was βSA and/or their fasting blood sugar ≥ 1.26 g/l.

Venous blood and random midstream urine specimens were collected after at least 8 hours of fasting. The assessment of biological indices was conducted at the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory of Albert Royer National University Children’s Hospital of Dakar (CHEAR). Quantitative assay of hemoglobin by sodium lauryl sulfate, a cyanide-free reagent, was performed using Sysmex XT-4000i (Sysmex Corporation, Kobe, Japan). Using a Mindray-BS-380 clinical biochemistry analyzer (Mindray, Créteil, France) and Biosystems reagents (Biosystems reagents & instruments, Barcelone, Espagne), the following parameters were analyzed using spectrocolorimetry: glycemia and glucosuria by glucose oxidase / peroxidase method, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) by urease / Berthelot reagent method, serum creatinine and urine creatinine by creatininase / creatinase / sarcosine oxidase / peroxidase enzymatic method with standardization to isotope dilution mass spectrometry, proteinuria by pyrogallol red molybdate, albuminuria by immunoturbidimetric method using a specific anti-human albumin antibodies. Glucose was also screened in urine by glucose oxidase / peroxidase method using test strips (nal von minden GmbH, Regensburg, Germany). Urine specific gravity was measured using an Atago-SPR-T2 refractometer (Atago, Saitama, Japon). GFR was computed using Schwartz’s formula in children and adolescents, and Chronic Kidney Disease—EPIdemiology (CKD-EPI) equation in adults [59, 60].

Proteinuria and albuminuria were normalized with urine creatinine and expressed as a ratio. Thus, proteinuria was expressed as a urinary protein to creatinine ratio (UPCR) and albuminuria as a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR). All two ratios were expressed as mg of protein or albumin per g of urine creatinine (mg/g). UPCR was defined as pathological proteinuria (UPCR > 200 mg/g [22.6 mg/mmol]) or physiological proteinuria (UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g [22.6 mg/mmol]). The urinary albumin / total protein ratio (UACR/UPCR) indicated the origin of proteinuria which was qualified as glomerular (UACR/UPCR ≥ 59%) or tubular (UACR/UPCR < 59%) [47, 61]. Thus, for example, normal glomerular proteinuria was defined as UPCR ≤ 200 mg/g (22.6 mg/mmol) with UACR / UPCR ≥ 59% while tubular pathologic proteinuria was defined as UPCR > 200 mg/g (22,6 mg/mmol) with UACR/UPCR < 59%. UACR was defined as albuminuria stage A1 (UACR < 30 mg/g [3.39 mg/mmol]), albuminuria stage A2 (30 mg/g [3.39 mg/mmol] ≤ UACR < 300 mg/g [33.9 mg/mmol]) or albuminuria stage A3 (UACR ≥ 300 mg/g [33.9 mg/mmol]). Microglucosuria was defined as glucosuria which is not a consequence of hyperglycemia and which might not be detectable by urine test strips that generally do not detect glucosuria below 50 mg/dl (2.775 mmol/l) but which is quantifiable by glucose oxidase / peroxidase method which can determine glucosuria 200 times lower (0.23 mg/dl [0.013 mmol/l]) according to the manufacturers of the reagents used in our study. Glucosuria was normalized by computing the ratio of glucosuria (mg/dl) to urine creatinine (g/dl), abbreviated UGCR, expressed in mg/g (x 0.625 μmol/mmol). Glucosuria greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of the UGCR in the control group was considered to be microglucosuria or pauciglucosuria. Hyposthenuria qualified an USG ≤ 5th percentile of the USG observed in the control group. Glomerular hyperfiltration (GHF) was defined by GFR > 140 ml/min/1.73m2, normal glomerular filtration by 90 ≤ GFR ≤ 140 ml/min/1.73 m2, glomerular hypofiltration by 60 ≤ GFR < 90 ml/min/1.73 m2 and renal insufficiency by GFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2.

DNA was extracted from peripheral blood at the Clinical Biochemistry Laboratory of Albert Royer National University Children’s Hospital of Dakar (CHEAR) using Puregene Blood Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Molecular confirmation of SCA was performed at the Division of Human Genetics, Faculty for Health Sciences, University of Cape Town using restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) with the same materials and protocols previously described [15]. Molecular analysis to identify the presence of the sickle mutation was carried out by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify a 770 bp segment of HBB, followed by DdeI restriction analysis of the PCR product [15]. Genotyping for the XmnI-rs7482144 was performed using the iPLEX Gold Sequenom Mass Genotyping Array (Inqaba Biotec, Pretoria, South Africa).

Regarding matching, we proceeded in two steps. In the first step, we compared cases and controls without considering age and sex as matching parameters. In second step, we selected a subgroup of cases who matched on age and sex with a subgroup of controls without any statistical significant difference regarding body mass index. Then these two subgroups were compared. In both steps, cases and controls was ethnic matched: all subjects included in both groups were sub-Saharan African black people. Descriptive statistics was used for anthropometric and biological variables (median, minimum, maximum, 5th and 95th percentiles), for both cases and controls. In addition, the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the means, for quantitative variables, between cases and unmatched controls, and between cases and controls matched on age and sex. Relevant quantitative parameters of nephropathy were transformed into categorical variables. The comparison of the prevalence of biomarkers disturbances was carried out using the χ2 test between unmatched cases and controls and then between cases and controls matched on age and sex. When an association was statistically established, the odds ratio (OR) was then calculated. The significance level for the tests was set at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was carried out using STATA version 14.0.370 for Windows TM (Stata Corp Inc., College Station, Texas, USA).

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

S2 File

(XLS)

S3 File

(PDF)

S1 Data

(XLS)

S2 Data

(DOCX)

List of abbreviations

SCD
NM_000518.5:c.20A>T

substitution of A to T at nucleotide position 20 of the complementary DNA

A

adenine

T

Thymine

NP_000509.1

p.Glu7Val: replacement of glutamic acid by valine at position 7 of the protein (β-globin chain)

Glu

Glutamic acid

Val

Valine

SCA

Sickle cell anemia

SNP

single nucleotide polymorphism

C

Cytosine

GFR

glomerular filtration rate

USG

urine specific gravity

ESRD

End-stage renal disease

SS

SCA patients without diabetes

CNTS

National Blood Transfusion Center

USAD

Ambulatory Care Unit for Children and Adolescents with Sickle Cell Disease

CHEAR

Albert Royer National University Children’s Hospital

CKD-EPI

Chronic Kidney Disease–EPIdemiology

UPCR

urinary protein to creatinine ratio

UACR

urinary albumin to creatinine ratio

UGCR

urinary glucose to creatinine ratio

GHF

Glomerular hyperfiltration

RFLP

restriction fragment length polymorphism

PCR

polymerase chain reaction

OR

odds ratio

USA

United State of America

mOsm/kgH2O

urine osmolality

PT

proximal tubule

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The clinical chemistry experiments of the study were in part funded by The African Center of Excellence for Maternal and Child Health «Centre d’Excellence Africain pour la Santé de la Mère et de l’Enfant (CEA-SAMEF, http://ceasamef.sn, No 000099/2018/JCM/KND) », Cheikh Anta Diop University of Dakar, Senegal. The molecular experiments of the study were funded by SADaCC (https://www.sickleinafrica.org) at the Division of Human Genetics, Faculty for Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, South Africa. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Ware RE, de Montalembert M, Tshilolo L, Abboud MR. Sickle Cell Disease. Lancet 2017;390: 311–323. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30193-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sundd P, Gladwin MT, Novelli EM. Pathophysiology of Sickle Cell Disease. Annu Rev Pathol 2019;14:263–92. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pathmechdis-012418-012838 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.National Center of Biotechnology Information. NCBI ClinVar. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/variation/15333/ (Aclcessed March 2021). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/clinvar/variation/14984/ (Accessed March 2021)
  • 4.Gueye Tall F, Martin C, Ndour EHM, Ly ID, Renoux C, Chillotti L, et al. Genetic Background of the Sickle Cell Disease Pediatric Population of Dakar, Senegal, and Characterization of a Novel Frameshift β-Thalassemia Mutation [HBB: c.265_266del; p.Leu89Glufs*2]. Hemoglobin 2017;41:89–95. doi: 10.1080/03630269.2017.1339610 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Piel FB, Patil AP, Howes RE, Nyangiri OA, Gething PW, Dewi M, et al. Global epidemiology of sickle haemoglobin in neonates: a contemporary geostatistical model-based map and population estimates. Lancet 2013;381:142–51. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61229-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD) de la République du Sénégal: La population du Sénégal en 2019, 2020.
  • 7.World Health Organisation (WHO), Regional Committee for Africa Sixtieth Session Malabo, Equatorial Guinea: Sickle-Cell Disease: a strategy for the WHO African Region, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Mondiale Banque, Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (ANSD) de la République du Sénégal: Sénégal: cartes de pauvreté, édition 2011, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nath KA, Hebbel R P. Sickle cell disease: renal manifestations and mechanisms. Nat Rev Nephrol 2015;11:161–71. doi: 10.1038/nrneph.2015.8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Powars DR, Elliott-Mills DD, Chan L, Niland J, Hiti AL, Opas LM, et al. Chronic renal failure in sickle cell disease: risk factors, clinical course, and mortality. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:614–620. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-115-8-614 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Powars DR, Chan LS, Hiti A, Ramicone E, Johnson C. Outcome of sickle cell anemia: a 4-decade observational study of 1056 patients. Med Baltim 2005;84:363–376. doi: 10.1097/01.md.0000189089.45003.52 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ranque B, Thiam MM, Diallo DA, Diop S, Diagne I, Sanogo I, et al. Sickle cell disease glomerulopathy in five subsaharian african countries: results of the Cadre Study. Blood 2013;122:779. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ranque B, Menet A, Diop IB, Thiam MM, Diallo D, Diop S, et al. Early renal damage in patients with sickle cell disease in sub-Saharan Africa: a multinational, prospective, cross-sectional study. Lancet Haematol 2014;1:e64–73. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(14)00007-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kaze FF, Kengne AP, Atanga LC, Monny Lobe M, Menanga AP, Halle MP, et al. Kidney function, urinalysis abnormalities and correlates in equatorial Africans with sickle cell disease. Clin Kidney J 2013;6:15–20. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfs100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Geard A, Pule GD, Chemegni BC, Bitoungui VJN, Kengne AP, Chimusa ER, et al. Clinical and genetic predictors of renal dysfunctions in sickle cell anaemia in Cameroon. Br J Haematol 2017;178:629–39. doi: 10.1111/bjh.14724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Nader R, Andrea RH, Carl T, Wittwer CT. Tietz fundamentals of clinical chemistry and molecular diagnostics. Elsevier; 2018;8th edition: p.375. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ozarda Y, Higgins V, Adeli K. Verification of reference intervals in routine clinical laboratories: practical challenges and recommendations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:30–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Belisário AR, Silva AAD, Silva CV, Souza LMD, Wakabayashi EA, Araújo SDA et al. Sickle cell disease nephropathy: An update on risk factors and potential biomarkers in pediatric patients. Biomark Med 2019;13:965–985. doi: 10.2217/bmm-2019-0105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.López RK, Andrés MPR. Kidney abnormalities in sickle cell disease. Nefrologia 2011;31:591–601. doi: 10.3265/Nefrologia.pre2011.Feb.10737 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sundaram N, Bennett M, Wilhelm J, Kim MO, Atweh G, Devarajan P, et al. Biomarkers for early detection of sickle nephropathy. Am J Hematol 2011;86:559–66. doi: 10.1002/ajh.22045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Itano H, Keitel H, Thompson D. Hyposthenuria in sickle cell anemia: a reversible renal defect. J Clin Invest 1956;35:998–1007. doi: 10.1172/JCI103360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Statius van Eps LW, Pinedo-Veels C, de Vries GH, de Koning J. Nature of concentrating defect in sickle cell nephropathy. Microradioangiographic studies. Lancet 1970;1:450–2. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(70)90836-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thompson J, Reid M, Hambleton I, Serjant GR. Albuminuria and renal function in homozygous sickle cell disease: Observations from a cohort study. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:701–8. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.7.701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chadha V, Garg U, Alon U S. Measurement of urinary concentration: a critical appraisal of methodologies. Pediatr Nephrol 2001;16:374–82. doi: 10.1007/s004670000551 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.de Jong PE, Statius van Eps LW. Sickle cell nephropathy: new insights into its pathophysiology. Kidney Int 1985;2:711–717. doi: 10.1038/ki.1985.70 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Becker A. Sickle cell nephropathy: challenging the conventional wisdom. Pediatr Nephrol 2011;26:2099–2109. doi: 10.1007/s00467-010-1736-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Drawz P, Ayyappan S, Nouraie M, Saraf S, Gordeuk V, Hostetter T et al. Kidney disease among patients with sickle cell disease, hemoglobin SS and SC. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2015;11:207–215. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03940415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Derebail VK, Zhou Q, Ciccone EJ, Cai J, Ataga KI. Rapid decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate is common in adults with sickle cell disease and associated with increased mortality. Br J Haematol 2019;186:900–907. doi: 10.1111/bjh.16003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ephraim RK, Osakunor DN, Cudjoe O, Oduro EA, Asante-Asamani L, Mitchell J, et al. Chronic kidney disease is common in sickle cell disease: a cross-sectional study in the Tema Metropolis, Ghana. BMC Nephrol 2015;16:75. doi: 10.1186/s12882-015-0072-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lakkakula BVKS Verma HK, Choubey M, Patra S, Khodiar PK, Patra PK. Assessment of renal function in Indian patients with sickle cell diseuse. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2017;28:524–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aloni MN, Ngiyulu RM, Ekulu PM, Mbutiwi FI, Makulo JR, Gini-Ehungu JL, et al. Glomerular hyperfiltration is strongly correlated with age in Congolese children with sickle cell anaemia. Acta Paediatr 2017;106:819–24. doi: 10.1111/apa.13784 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zahr RS, Yee ME, Weaver J, Twombley K, Matar RB, Aviles D, et al. Kidney biopsy findings in children with sickle cell disease: a Midwest Pediatric Nephrology Consortium study. Pediatr Nephrol 2019;34:1435–45. doi: 10.1007/s00467-019-04237-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Gosmanova EO, Zaidi S, Wan JY, Adams-Graves PE. Prevalence and progression of chronic kidney disease in adult patients with sickle cell disease. J Investig Med 2014;62:804–7. doi: 10.1097/01.JIM.0000446836.75352.72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Haymann JP, Stankovic K, Levy P, Avellino V, Tharaux PL, Letavernier E et al. Glomerular hyperfiltration in adult sickle cell anemia: A frequent hemolysis associated feature. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010;5:756–761. doi: 10.2215/CJN.08511109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Arlet JB, Ribeil JA, Chatellier G, Eladari D, Seigneux SD, Souberbielle JC, et al. Determination of the best method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine in adult patients with sickle cell disease: a prospective observational cohort study. BMC Nephrol 2012;13:83. doi: 10.1186/1471-2369-13-83 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Silva GBJ, Libório AB, Vieira AP, Bem AX, Lopes ASF, Figueiredo ACF, et al. Evaluation of renal function in sickle cell disease patients in Brazil. Braz J Med Biol Res 2012;45:652–5. doi: 10.1590/s0100-879x2012007500079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kabir OO, Allegretti AS, Zhao SH, Achebe MM, Eneanya ND, Thadhani RI, et al. Kidney function decline among black patients with sickle cell trait and sickle cell disease: an observational cohort study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2020;3:393–404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Guasch A, Navarrete J, Nass K, Zayas CF. Glomerular involvement in adults with sickle cell hemoglobinopathies: prevalence and clinical correlates of progressive renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 2006;17:2228–35. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2002010084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Blantz RC, Deng A, Miracle CM, Thomson SC. Regulation of kidney function and metabolism: a question of supply and demand. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2007;118:23–43. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Dharnidharka V, Dabbagh S, Atiyeh B, Simpson P, Sarnaik S. Prevalence of microalbuminuria in children with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Nephrol. 1998;12:475–8. doi: 10.1007/s004670050491 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Solarin AU, Njokanma FO, Kehinde O. Prevalence and clinical correlates of microalbuminuria among children with sickle cell anaemia attending Lagos State University Teaching Hospital, Ikeja. Afr J Paediatr Nephrol 2014;1:37–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ocheke I, Mohamed S, Okpe E, Thomas FB, McCullouch M. Microalbuminuria risks and glomerular filtration in children with sickle cell anaemia in Nigeria. Ital J Pediatr 2019;45:143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Elbalawy S, Gad N, Alshwameen M, Alshaman D, Alhowity I, Ghumaird A et al. Microalbuminuria as a predictor of early glomerular injury in children and adolescents with sickle cell anaemia at King Salman Armed Forced Hospital, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Med Sci 2019;23:3227–232. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Alkhunaizi AM, Al-Khatti AA, Mueilo SHA, Amir A, Yousif B. End-stage renal disease in patients with sickle cell disease. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2018;28:751–757. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Mawanda M., JM S, Odiit A, Kiguli S, Muyingo A, Ndugwa C. Micro-albuminuria in Ugandan children with sickle cell anaemia: a cross-sectional study. Ann Trop Paediatr 2011;31:115–21. doi: 10.1179/1465328111Y.0000000013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Raidelet L, Bricon TL. Exploration de la protéinurie au laboratoire. Rev Francoph Des Lab 2013;451:75–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bökenkamp A. Proteinuria—take a closer look! Pediatr Nephrol 2020;35:533–41. doi: 10.1007/s00467-019-04454-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Viteri B, Reid-Adam J. Hematuria and proteinuria in children. Pediatr Rev 2018;39:573–87. doi: 10.1542/pir.2017-0300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Aleem A. Renal abnormalities in patients with sickle cell disease: a single center report from Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2008;19:194–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marsenic O, Couloures KG, Wiley JM. Proteinuria in children with sickle cell disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008;23:715–20. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfm858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Yeboah CTO, Rodrigues O. Renal status of children with sickle cell disease in Accra. Ghana Med J, 2011;45:155–160. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alhwiesh A. An update on sickle cell nephropathy. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl 2014;25: 249–265. doi: 10.4103/1319-2442.128495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Marouf R, Mojiminiyi O, Abdella N, Kortom M, Wazzan HA. Comparison of renal function markers in Kuwaiti patients with sickle cell disease. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:345–351. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.026799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Abdu A, Emokpae M, Uadia P, Gwarzo AK. Proteinuria among adult sickle cell anemia patients in Nigeria. Ann Afr Med 2011;10:34–37. doi: 10.4103/1596-3519.76578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wigfall DR, Ware RE, Burchinal MR, Kinney TR. Prevalence and clinical correlates of glomerulopathy in children with sickle cell disease. J Pediatr 2000;136:749–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Eshbach ML, Kaur A, Rbaibi Y, Tejero J, Weisz OA. Hemoglobin inhibits albumin uptake by proximal tubule cells: implications for sickle cell disease. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2017;312:C733–40. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00021.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Gonzalez-Michaca L, Farrugia G, Croatt AJ, Alam J, Nath KA. Heme: a determinant of life and death in renal tubular epithelial cells. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 2004;286:F370 –F377. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00300.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Unal S, Kotan C, Delibas A, Oztas A. Cystatin C, beta-2 microglobulin, N-acetyl-beta-D glucosaminidase, retinol-binding protein, and endothelin 1 levels in the evaluation of sickle cell disease nephropathy, Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2015; 32:250–257. doi: 10.3109/08880018.2013.810317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Schwartz GJ, Munoz A, Scheider MF, Mak RH, Kaskel F, Warady BA, et al. New Equations to Estimate GFR in Children with CKD. J Am Soc Nephrol 2009;20:629–37. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2008030287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Levey AS, Stevens LA, Schmid CH, Zhang YL, Castro AF, Feldman HI, et al. A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:604–12. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Ohisa N, Yoshida K, Matsuki R, Suzuki H, Miura H, Ohisa Y, et al. A comparison of urinary albumin-total protein ratio to phase-contrast microscopic examination of urine sediment for differentiating glomerular and nonglomerular bleeding. Am J Kidney Dis 2008;52:235–41. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.04.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bhagwan Dass

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

18 Aug 2021

PONE-D-21-14690

BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGAL

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. NDOUR,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please make some major revisions and explanation to some of the point raised by the reviewers, we will review again once changes have been made and I look forward to revised version.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bhagwan Dass, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Khuthala Mnika, Fatou Guèye Tall1, Moussa SECK, Indou Dème Ly, Victoria Nembaware, Gaston Kuzamunu Mazandu, Hélène Ange Thérèse Sagna-Bassène, Rokhaya Dione, Aliou Abdoulaye Ndongo, Jean Pascal Demba Diop, Nènè Oumou kesso Barry, Moustapha Djité Rokhaya Ndiaye Diallo, Papa Madièye Guèye, Saliou Diop, Ibrahima Diagne, Aynina Cissé1, Ambroise Wonkam and Philomène Lopez Sall. 

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a well designed studies answering relevant questions for the chosen study population with potentially wider implications for the management of patients with SCD worldwide.

The statistics, presentation of results and discussion are sound and logical.

I have made minor comments on the attached pdf.

The main recommendation is for the authors to discuss a bit more the age difference between thecases and controls, whether that might have impacted findings and if so how

Reviewer #2: Review assignment for PONE-D-21-14690

BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGAL

PLOS ONE

Sickle cell nephropathy is a common complication of SCD, which is one of the most frequent monogenic disorders worldwide. As Senegal is a country with high prevalence of the disease, studying the biomarkers of sickle cell nephropathy in Senegal is a relevant topic. However, there are major concerns regarding the methodology. Additionally, the results could have been reported more efficiently and in a less ambiguous way.

Major concerns

1 – Regarding the statistical methods, the authors do not clearly explain how the controls were selected. Although restriction to an ethno-linguistic group may be relevant, there is a lack of information about how the matching was performed.

2 – The definition presented for sickle cell disease is actually the definition for sickle cell anemia (patients whose phenotype is usually the most severe because of being homozygous for the beta S mutation).

3 – Please consider merging table 1 and 2 into a single table with columns for SCA patients, controls, and p-values. Keeping the number of observations for each variable is appropriate. However, median and interquartile range would be preferable to median (min-max) and 5-95th percentiles).

Minor concerns

1 – The same keyword should be used throughout the paper when referring to “kidney dysfunction” for consistency. Avoid using dysfunction, impairment, abnormalities, etc., to refer to the same concept.

2 – The authors could consider using “without diabetes” instead of “free of diabetes”.

3 – The non-normally distributed continuous variables usually are presented as median (interquartile range). The interquartile range is the range from the 25th to 75th percentile, not the range from the 5th to 95th percentile which is presented by the authors.

4 – The authors should uniformize the way p-values are presented. For example, “p-value <0.001” instead of “p-value <10^-3” consistently.

5 – The sex distribution of the study sample should be presented as absolute and relative frequencies of the most common category/sex, instead of the female-to-male ratios.

6 – In line with the KDIGO guidelines, the albuminuria stages should be used instead of the older terms “microalbuminuria” and “macroalbuminuria”. Also, the term “chronic kidney disease” should be used instead “chronic renal insufficiency”.

7 - Glycosuria is a known marker of tubular dysfunction and the authors appropriately stress the importance of monitoring glycosuria as an early biomarker of sickle cell nephropathy. However, the term “microglucosuria” sounds inappropriate as it focus on the capacity of the laboratorial test to detect glycose in the urine.

8 – A high urine protein-to-creatinine ratio (UPCR) with normal urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) is common in sickle cell nephropathy as a mechanism of tubular proteinuria is expected. The authors define tubular proteinuria as a UPCR-UACR ratio > 59%. The reason to use this cut-off should have been discussed. Please provide a reference for this.

9 – In table 4 avoid showing the observations for all categories of each variable as it is redundant. Please show the observations for the category of interest of each variable (for example, show the frequency of urinary albumin to creatinine ratio >= 30 mg/g). Also, the GFR categories could be presented in a decrescent order (e.g., > 140; 90-140; 60-90; <60).

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr Leonard Ebah

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-14690.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review assignment for PONE-D-21-14690.docx

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0273745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273745.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Aug 2021

We thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful comments. The manuscript has been revised to address their concerns, with additions and changes highlighted in blue and support information.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to ReviewersPONE-D-21-14690..docx

Decision Letter 1

Laurent Metzinger

19 Jan 2022

PONE-D-21-14690R1BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGALPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. NDOUR,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Laurent Metzinger

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #3: Ndour et la present an original article entitled "BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGAL"

The study is well designed and relevant asq it focuses on a specific population.

The statistics, presentation of results and discussion are mostly OK.

I would advise to justify the age difference between the patients and controls.

Also in discussion, compare with more depth to other relevant similar papers in other populations.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0273745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273745.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


7 Mar 2022

Thank you for your recommandations. They have helped us to improve the discussion section of the paper and to deposit in protocols.io the laboratory protocol that describes how microglucosuria is determined in patients living with sickle cell disease in our paper.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to ReviewersPONE-D-21-14690..docx

Decision Letter 2

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

3 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-14690R2BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGALPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ndour,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by July 18, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Ndour,

Your manuscript “BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGAL”” has been assessed by our reviewers. They have raised a number of points which we believe would improve the manuscript and may allow a revised version to be published in PLOS ONE. Their reports, together with any other comments, are below.

If you are able to fully address these points, we would encourage you to submit a revised manuscript to PLOS ONE.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Partly

Reviewer #6: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: El Hadji Malick Ndour et al performed case-control study to identify the candidate biomarkers for sickle cell nephropathy in sickle cell anemia from Senegal population. A total of 163 patients with SCA and 177 ethnic matched controls were enrolled. The higher prevalence of hyposthenuria, glomerular hyperfiltration, microalbuminuria, proteinuria, tubular proteinuria, and microglucoruia were observed in SCA patients compared with controls. Although the study is rather descriptive, the study to investigate the prevalence of renal dysfunction in SCA patients is unique and interesting. However, there are several concerns as follow.

Major comments

1. In abstract line 5, what is the definition and diagnostic criteria for “sickle cell nephropathy”? The authors should apply the diagnostic criteria for “sickle cell nephropathy” in the SCA patients. In addition, how did the authors exclude other kidney diseases in SCA and control groups?

2. In line 63-65 Table 1 and 2, were the patients with diabetes excluded? Were there no patients with blood glucose levels more than 170-180 mg/dL?

3. In lines 91 and 272-274, the authors should describe the definition of glomerular hyperfiltration.

4. In line 92, the authors should describe the definition of chronic kidney disease (CKD).

5. In line 93, did the authors measure tubular injury markers such as β2-microglobulin?

6. In lines 306-309, how did the authors statistically match the age and sex? Did the authors use the propensity score matching?

7. If the authors are able to make the diagnosis “sickle cell nephropathy” according to the diagnostic criteria, the authors investigate the sensitivity, specificity and AUC of cut-off points of hyposthenuria, glomerular hyperfiltration, microalbuminuria, proteinuria, tubular proteinuria, and microglucoruia for the diagnosis of “sickle cell nephropathy”.

Reviewer #5: The authors showed a relatively high proportion of SCA nephropathy among patients living with SCA in Senegal, and several parameters were suggested as prevalent biomarkers of nephropathy. This article seems to be refined after appropriate revision, and the contents is interesting. However, I regret to realize several problems of the article.

1. This is a critical problem. The authors ignored the effect of the skeletal muscle volume on serum creatinine levels and urinary creatinine excretion. The skeletal muscle volume was known to decrease in patients with SCA in both child and adult (Barden et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002; 76: 218-25., Ravelojaona et al. Am J Pathol. 2015; 185: 1448-56.). Both serum creatinine levels and urinary creatinine excretion decrease in patient with lower skeletal muscle volume. Hence, eGFR, UACR and UPCR would be overestimated in patients with SCA. Actually, although statistical difference for BMI was not observed among age- and sex-matched patients, it strongly tended to lower in patients with SCA (Table 3: p=0.079). BMI would decrease in patients with lower skeletal muscle volume. Because patient number was relatively small, hence beta error for BMI should be considered.

2. This is a second critical problem. The timing to collect urine for urinary analysis should be described. Because amount of water drinking or food intake can affect USG, especially in non-early morning urine.

3. Did the authors evaluate urinary volume, amount of drinking and serum sodium concentration? These parameters would be different in patients with SCA because impairment of urinary concentration was observed.

4. Which one was the most important biomarker for detect SCA nephropathy? Was there any difference between early and late phase? Which biomarker was associated with poor renal prognosis?

5. I may be wrong but could you confirm line 172 and 185? Was it "Table 5" instead of "Table 4"? Because the authors described “Table 5” in both sentences, but the values for the prevalence of GHF and CKD, which were described in line 171 and 183, were same to the values described in Table 4.

6. I may be wrong but could you confirm the value for blood pressure? I think “regular” blood pressure is about 120/70 mmHg, but the described value seems one digit missing.

Reviewer #6: Dear authors,

Thank you for this submission.

My comment are given below.

Abstract

The terms creatininemia nad creatinuria do not sound right as everyone has creatinine in blood and urine. They are not used widely. Please revise term with known, widely used and accepted ones. This is valid for these terms through all manuscript. My suggestion is creatinine and urine creatinine.

Introduction

Details about sickle cell disease are very important but as the topic is sickle cell nephropathy they could be summarized to highlight nephropathy more.

Results

I think there is no need to give 5-95 percentiles at table 1 and 2. Please revise them and unite table 1 and 2 which would make them easily seen together and comparable. In addition, a column could be added to this table for p values which would make table 3 unnecessary as well. There is no need to define controls as AA non-DT as details of them are given at the text. It may be refereed just as control group. In summary, in my opinion, a table for all participants’ values with p values and another table for just sex and age matched controls containing all parameters would be more suitable. P values should be present for all parameters given at tables, not for some parameters.

Blood pressures are written to be in mmHg but there should a mistake at numbers. They are so small and I think are given in cmHg. Please check them.

Details between line 75-80 are methodological ones so they should be removed to methods section. There should be no reference given at results section.

Please revise sentences between lines 91 and 103. Adding ‘table…’ to the end of long sentences are not grammatically correct. Parameters could be given one by one and detailed according to the groups, sickle cell and control, and p value could be given at last. Moreover, there should be consistency between definition of parameters at the text and at the table. If you mention about albuminuria stage 2 at the text, a reader must see this parameter when looking to the table easily. Revise text and tablet o make them parallel to each other. Instead of stage 2 albuminuria, microalbuminuria could be used if you prefer.

When I read results section, it made my mind confused rather than being aware of differences between patients and controls. It should be more precise.

Discussion

This section should not repeat findings. To refer a finding, a short sentence referring findings is enough and there should be some comment or speculation about it besides comparison with other similar studies. Please try to remove repetitions regarding finding as much as possible.

GFR was found by different formula in children and adults. Is it correct to put GFRs got by two different formula and present them together? I think it is not correct. The percentage of children is not given. You should give this detail. If you would like to present GFRs together, you should add this a limitation. Another limitation is the selection of control group. It is open to bias, especially sex and age matched one. It should be also added as a limitation. The details of GFR measurements should be transferred to methods section. At discussion, the reason for this and its possible effects to th

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Nov 21;17(11):e0273745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273745.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


26 Jul 2022

We thank reviewers for their helpful observations, questions, comments and recommantions.

We have given our response in the rebuttal letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: REBUTTAL LETTER.docx

Decision Letter 3

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

16 Aug 2022

BIOMARKERS OF SICKLE CELL NEPHROPATHY IN SENEGAL

PONE-D-21-14690R3

Dear Dr. Ndour,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Donovan Anthony McGrowder, PhD., MA., MSc

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ndour,

The manuscript was revised in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and is provisionally accepted pending final checks for formatting and technical requirements.

Regards,

Dr. Donovan McGrowder (Academic Editor)<o:p></o:p>

Acceptance letter

Donovan Anthony McGrowder

9 Nov 2022

PONE-D-21-14690R3

Biomarkers of Sickle Cell Nephropathy in Senegal

Dear Dr. Ndour:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Donovan Anthony McGrowder

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    S2 File

    (XLS)

    S3 File

    (PDF)

    S1 Data

    (XLS)

    S2 Data

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-21-14690.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review assignment for PONE-D-21-14690.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to ReviewersPONE-D-21-14690..docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to ReviewersPONE-D-21-14690..docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REBUTTAL LETTER.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES