Acute kidney injury influences mortality in lung transplantation
Authors: Liang Wang
Zhu-Xing Sun
Jing Xue
Jing-Yu Chen
Cai-Mei Chen
Journal: Renal Failure (2014)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: acute kidney injury; long-term survival; lung transplant patients; AKIN classification; mortality
Affiliations: Department of Nephrology, Wuxi People's Hospital, the Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University , Jiangsu , China and.

Abstract:  Objective: To evaluate the association between acute kidney injury (AKI) and long-term survival in lung transplant patients. Methods: Clinical data of 88 patients who underwent lung transplantation (LTx) were retrospectively analyzed at our institution from September 2002 to December 2011. Postoperative AKI was defined and divided into three groups based on creatinine criteria from the Acute Kidney Injury Net (AKIN) classification. A multivariable logistic regression model evaluated risk factors for AKI. Primary outcome was 5-year mortality. Risk adjusted multivariable COX proportional hazards regression examined the association of AKI with mortality. Results: A total of 47 (53.40%) patients developed AKI (27 with AKIN1, 20 with AKIN2-3) in the first week after LTx. Multivariate analysis showed pre-LT (pre-lung transplant) hypertension (OR 1.37 [0.06-2.68], p=0.041) and mechanical ventilation (OR 0.05 [0.01-0.09], p=0.022) were risk factors for postoperative AKI. Five-year survival rates in the non-AKI, AKIN1, and AKIN2-3 groups were 48.8%, 37.0%, 30.0%, respectively (p=0.041). Adjusted for age, sex, type and cause of LT, hypertension and diabetes, the hazard ratio for death was 1.481 ([1.040-2.107]) for AKI. Conclusions: The occurrence of AKI after LTx is common. Severe AKI would increase long-term mortality risk. Several variables, including pre-LT hypertension and mechanical ventilation, are associated with AKI after LTx. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Images in Figure 5 appears to have some repeated features. Not all areas have been marked. *** Original ![file] *** Inverse ![file] *** False color ![file] , 
 Paper: A dihydro-pyrido-indole potently inhibits HSV-1 infection by interfering the viral immediate early transcriptional events Antiviral Research (2014) Pubmed: 24576908 doi: 10.1016 j.antiviral.2014.02.007 issn: 0166-3542 issn: 1872-9096 Dear Dr Actinopolyspora Biskrensis, Thank you for your comments. I was really surprised to see it and have doubt whether the full paper and Figure Legend were considered!. Your comments on the Figure 5, dealt with the Effect of HM on the binding of IE complex on ICP0 promoter. The data presented was the RAW DATA, directly from the experiment done by the two students Paromita Bag and Umesh C Halder. The legend explains the detail of the experiment, its conditions and the aim of this experiment clearly. Fig. 5. Effect of HM on the binding of IE complex on ICP0 promoter: (A) Reaction mixtures (20 u00b5l) containing 3 u00b5g nuclear extracts, prepared from HSV-1 infected untreated or HM-treated Vero cells for 2 and 4 h post-infection, 20 fmol Biotin 30 end-labelled probe, 50 ng u00b5l poly (dI-dC), 2.5% glycerol, 0.05% NP-40 (1%), 5 mM MgCl2 and 1X binding buffer was incubated for 20 min at room temperature. The proteinu2013DNA complexes were then separated by native gel electrophoresis on a 4% polyacrylamide gel in 0.5X TBE buffer transferred to Nylon membranes and developed according to the manufactureru2019s instructions (Thermo Scientific, USA). Lane 1: P, free probe; Lane 2: M, mock infected nuclear extract; Lane 3 to 4: HSV-1 infected nuclear extract for 2 and 4 h post-infection; Lane 5 to 6: HSV-1 infected nuclear extract treated with HM for 2 and 4 h post-infection. Figure (Bu2013E) represent the gel shift assay. The binding reactions were performed as described in panel A, following 30 min pre-incubation with specific antibodies against HCF1 (B), Oct-1 (C), VP16 (D), and LSD1 (E). Lane 1: P, free probe; Lane 2: HSV-1 Infected nuclear extract; Lane 3: HSV-1 infected nuclear extract in presence of respective antibodies; Lane 4: HSV-1 infected HM treated nuclear extract for 2u20134 h in presence of respective antibodies. The Figures (B-E) as mentioned: We have run five different blots (A-E) with the same VIRUS Strain, untreated or treated with the same drug HM at same concentrations 5.0 u00b5g ml, but with different antibodies HCF-1 (Panel B), Oct-1 (Panel C), VP16 (Panel D), and LSD-1 (Panel E). As this is the raw date (as per the Journal norm) with the same virus strain (HSV-1) the running pattern of blots could be same, although we have run different blots, as mentioned above, following the same methodology, described in the legend of Figure 5. Please see the protein separation pattern, which imply that these are completely different blots. Moreover, if the blot has been repeated or same then: (1)tHow the protein run pattern is different in different gel? (2) If the Gel photos are repeated how the adjacent wells are showing different pattern of shifting? (3) The band above the marked one are completely different pattern and clearly visible. Actually, what you have marked may be the nuclear proteins that may commonly expressing in different conditions and which is NOT OUR TARGET. , 
 #2 Thank you for your reply. Could the authors please provide a high resolution version of the original scans? You may post those here or use a link to an external site (such as Imgur.com or Google Drive) for larger files. , 
 #2 Thank you for taking the trouble to write a lengthy response. However, it may not allay the concerns of readers. One of these concerns is the partial similarity between lanes 3 and 4 of panel B on one hand, and 1 and 2 from panel C on the other hand. The possibility preying on some readers minds is that these two panels have a common origin (e.g. that they were once overlapping parts of a single larger gel), subjected to some form of digital enhancement, explaining the bands in which they **differ**. Here are the gels: ![file] Here shown with increased contrast, and darkened, to emphasise the similar backgrounds in the upper sections of the lanes (with the disadvantage of obscuring their lower sections). ![file] Here with increased contrast, and lightened, to emphasise the similar textures in the lower sections of the lanes (with the disadvantage of washing out their lower sections). ![file] , 
 #4 There is evidence from images in [another paper] that someone in this laboratory has used digital methods of composition. Hence the concerns. ![] , 
 Here, Fig 5D. Shown at the right with enhanced contrast, to emphasise the similar regions in the upper area. ![file] , 
 One of the co-authors (Dr. Das) has [commented publicly] about the above concerns. Some excerpts:  There is nothing wrong with the images. In any case, the images are collected by students....  All of this (comments on PubPeer) has appeared after I applied for a directorship position. Whatever has been flagged is very minor, there is nothing substantial there, Das claimed.  Targeting somebody without any proof is unethical and biased, especially when many others also have papers in the same site. Is it my political affiliation that is bothering some people?  If anybody has any problem, I welcome them to talk to me directly, purely on science.u201d I would ask that Dr. Das consider responding the the specific scientific concerns identified above. There is ample evidence that several papers co-authored by Dr. Das contain images of questionable provenance, and few of these concerns have been adequately addressed by the authors. , 
 #7  If anybody has any problem, I welcome them to talk to me directly, purely on science.u201d Someone needs to create an on-line forum where direct discussions, purely on science, could occur. Perhaps it could include options for anonymity to ensure that discussions do not become personal. , 
 #2 I would again urge the authors to provide the original data to address these serious concerns. The response in #2 does not address my concerns. This journal encourages authors to retain and share data upon request. ,