Intrarenal Single-Cell Sequencing of Hepatitis B Virus Associated Membranous Nephropathy

To date, the pathogenesis of hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated membranous nephropathy (MN) remains elusive. This study aimed to decipher the etiopathogenesis of HBV-associated MN by performing single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of kidney biopsy specimens from a patient with HBV-associated MN and two healthy individuals. We generated 4,114 intrarenal single-cell transcriptomes from the HBV-associated MN patient by scRNA-seq. Compared to healthy individuals, podocytes in the HBV-associated MN patient showed an increased expression of extracellular matrix formation-related genes, including HSPA5, CTGF, and EDIL3. Kidney endothelial cells (ECs) in the HBV-associated MN were enriched in inflammatory pathways, including NF-kappa B signaling, IL-17 signaling, TNF signaling and NOD-like receptor signaling. Gene ontology (GO) functional enrichment analysis and Gene Set Variation Analysis (GSVA) further revealed that differentially expressed genes (DEGs) of ECs from the HBV-associated MN patients were enriched in apoptotic signaling pathway, response to cytokine and leukocyte cell-cell adhesion. The up-regulated DEGs in glomerular ECs of HBV-associated MN patients were involved in biological processes such as viral gene expression, and protein targeting to endoplasmic reticulum. We further verified that the overexpressed genes in ECs from HBV-associated MN were mainly enriched in regulation of protein targeting to endoplasmic reticulum, exocytosis, viral gene expression, IL-6 and IL-1 secretion when compared with anti-phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R)-positive idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN). The receptor-ligand crosstalk analysis revealed potential interactions between endothelial cells and other cells in HBV-associated-MN. These results offer new insight into the pathogenesis of HBV-associated MN and may identify new therapeutic targets for HBV-associated MN

Identification of common molecular signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its influence on acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the main cause of COVID-19, causing hundreds of millions of confirmed cases and more than 18.2 million deaths worldwide. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of COVID-19 that leads to an increase in mortality, especially in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, and chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a high risk factor for COVID-19 and its related mortality. However, the underlying molecular mechanisms among AKI, CKD, and COVID-19 are unclear. Therefore, transcriptome analysis was performed to examine common pathways and molecular biomarkers for AKI, CKD, and COVID-19 in an attempt to understand the association of SARS-CoV-2 infection with AKI and CKD. Three RNA-seq datasets (GSE147507, GSE1563, and GSE66494) from the GEO database were used to detect differentially expressed genes (DEGs) for COVID-19 with AKI and CKD to search for shared pathways and candidate targets. A total of 17 common DEGs were confirmed, and their biological functions and signaling pathways were characterized by enrichment analysis. MAPK signaling, the structural pathway of interleukin 1 (IL-1), and the Toll-like receptor pathway appear to be involved in the occurrence of these diseases. Hub genes identified from the protein–protein interaction (PPI) network, including DUSP6, BHLHE40, RASGRP1, and TAB2, are potential therapeutic targets in COVID-19 with AKI and CKD. Common genes and pathways may play pathogenic roles in these three diseases mainly through the activation of immune inflammation. Networks of transcription factor (TF)–gene, miRNA–gene, and gene–disease interactions from the datasets were also constructed, and key gene regulators influencing the progression of these three diseases were further identified among the DEGs. Moreover, new drug targets were predicted based on these common DEGs, and molecular docking and molecular dynamics (MD) simulations were performed. Finally, a diagnostic model of COVID-19 was established based on these common DEGs. Taken together, the molecular and signaling pathways identified in this study may be related to the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 infection affects renal function. These findings are significant for the effective treatment of COVID-19 in patients with kidney diseases

Machine learning for the prediction of all-cause mortality in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury during hospitalization

BackgroundSepsis-associated acute kidney injury (S-AKI) is considered to be associated with high morbidity and mortality, a commonly accepted model to predict mortality is urged consequently. This study used a machine learning model to identify vital variables associated with mortality in S-AKI patients in the hospital and predict the risk of death in the hospital. We hope that this model can help identify high-risk patients early and reasonably allocate medical resources in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsA total of 16,154 S-AKI patients from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database were examined as the training set (80%) and the validation set (20%). Variables (129 in total) were collected, including basic patient information, diagnosis, clinical data, and medication records. We developed and validated machine learning models using 11 different algorithms and selected the one that performed the best. Afterward, recursive feature elimination was used to select key variables. Different indicators were used to compare the prediction performance of each model. The SHapley Additive exPlanations package was applied to interpret the best machine learning model in a web tool for clinicians to use. Finally, we collected clinical data of S-AKI patients from two hospitals for external validation.ResultsIn this study, 15 critical variables were finally selected, namely, urine output, maximum blood urea nitrogen, rate of injection of norepinephrine, maximum anion gap, maximum creatinine, maximum red blood cell volume distribution width, minimum international normalized ratio, maximum heart rate, maximum temperature, maximum respiratory rate, minimum fraction of inspired O2, minimum creatinine, minimum Glasgow Coma Scale, and diagnosis of diabetes and stroke. The categorical boosting algorithm model presented significantly better predictive performance [receiver operating characteristic (ROC): 0.83] than other models [accuracy (ACC): 75%, Youden index: 50%, sensitivity: 75%, specificity: 75%, F1 score: 0.56, positive predictive value (PPV): 44%, and negative predictive value (NPV): 92%]. External validation data from two hospitals in China were also well validated (ROC: 0.75).ConclusionsAfter selecting 15 crucial variables, a machine learning-based model for predicting the mortality of S-AKI patients was successfully established and the CatBoost model demonstrated best predictive performance

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field