Back

Quantifying donor-recipient mismatches using recipient-derived sources of donor DNA

Rajeevan, N.; Caldato Barsotti, G.; Kumar, A.; Sun, Z.; Reghuvaran, A.; Tikhonova, I.; Tanvir, E. M.; Sareen, N.; Swan, A.; Formica, R.; Mandel-Brehm, C.; Rao, A.; Besse, W.; Miller, M.; Bow, L.; De Kumar, B.; Menon, M. C.

2026-06-02 nephrology
10.64898/2026.06.01.26354606 medRxiv
Show abstract

Non-HLA donor-recipient (D-R) genetic mismatches contribute to kidney allograft injury and long-term graft loss, but their clinical use is limited by the unavailability of donor DNA after transplantation. We tested whether non-invasively obtained, recipient-derived samples could be used to infer donor genotype and D-R mismatches. Genomic DNA (g-DNA) of 11 unselected kidney transplant recipients and donors underwent whole-exome sequencing (100x). Additional customized probes were added for intronic coverage (300x) of 55 targeted non-HLA genes of reported clinical relevance. Variants identified from sequencing results were compared with plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA), urine cell-pellet DNA (U-DNA) obtained from the same recipients. Genome-wide-, exonic-, or non-synonymous exonic- mismatches in transmembrane or secreted proteins, and mismatches within target genes were benchmarked using donor g-DNA to generate mismatch scores for each D-R pair. Within each of these genomic scales of mismatch, U-DNA identified D-R mismatches significantly better than the corresponding cfDNA (P<0.001 for each comparison). U-DNA also identified gene-level mismatches in the LIMS1 gene, and correctly inferred established donor-origin risk alleles, including SHROOM3 and APOL1. Our findings demonstrate proof-of-concept that U-DNA in tandem with recipient genome, can non-invasively infer relevant non-HLA loci/mismatches circumventing the need for the donor genomic DNA.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.