Lupus nephritis: low urinary DNase I levels reflect loss of renal DNase I and may be utilized as a biomarker of disease progression.

Renal DNase I is lost in advanced stages of lupus nephritis. Here, we determined if loss of renal DNase I reflects a concurrent loss of urinary DNase I, and whether absence of urinary DNase I predicts disease progression. Mouse and human DNase I protein and DNase I endonuclease activity levels were determined by western blot, gel, and radial activity assays at different stages of the murine and human forms of the disease. Cellular localization of DNase I was analyzed by immunohistochemistry, immunofluorescence, confocal microscopy, and immunoelectron microscopy. We further compared DNase I levels in human native and transplanted kidneys to determine if the disease depended on autologous renal genes, or whether the nephritic process proceeded also in transplanted kidneys. The data indicate that reduced renal DNase I expression level relates to serious progression of lupus nephritis in murine, human native, and transplanted kidneys. Notably, silencing of renal DNase I correlated with loss of DNase I endonuclease activity in the urine samples. Thus, urinary DNase I levels may therefore be used as a marker of lupus nephritis disease progression and reduce the need for renal biopsies.

IL-1ß Promotes a New Function of DNase I as a Transcription Factor for the Fas Receptor Gene.

Recently we described that endonuclease inactive DNase I translocated into the nucleus in response to increased endogenous IL-1ß expression. Here, we demonstrate impact and function of translocated DNase I in tubular cells. Effect of cytokines on expression level and nuclear localisation of DNase I and corresponding levels of Fas receptor (FasR) and IL-1ß were determined by confocal microscopy, qPCR and western blot analyses, in presence or absence of siRNA against IL-1ß and DNase I mRNA. Nuclear DNase I bound to the FAS promotor region as determined by chromatin immuno-precipitation analysis. Data demonstrate that; (i) translocation of DNase I depended on endogenous de novo-expressed IL-1ß, (ii) nuclear DNase I bound FAS DNA, (iii) FasR expression increased after translocation of DNase I, (iv) interaction of exogenous Fas ligand (FasL) with upregulated FasR induced apoptosis in human tubular cells stimulated with TNFα. Thus, translocated DNase I most probably binds the promoter region of the FAS gene and function as a transcription factor for FasR. In conclusion, DNase I not only executes chromatin degradation during apoptosis and necrosis, but also primes the cells for apoptosis by enhancing FasR expression.

Future Perspectives on Pathogenesis of Lupus Nephritis: Facts, Problems, and Potential Causal Therapy Modalities.

Divergent incommensurable models have been developed to explain the pathogenesis of lupus nephritis. Most contemporary models favor a central role for anti-chromatin antibodies. How they exert their pathogenic effect has, however, endorsed conflicts that at least for now preclude insight into definitive pathogenic pathways. The following paradigms are contemporarily in conflict with each other: i) the impact of anti-double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) antibodies that cross-react with inherent renal antigens, ii) the impact of anti-dsDNA antibodies targeting exposed chromatin in glomeruli, and iii) the impact of relative antibody avidity for dsDNA, chromatin fragments, or cross-reacting antigens. Aside from these three themes, the pathogenic role of T cells in lupus nephritis is not clear. These different models should be tested through a collaboration between scientists belonging to the different paradigms. If it turns out that there are different pathogenic pathways in lupus nephritis, the emerging pathogenic mechanism(s) may be encountered with new individual causal therapy modalities. Today, therapy is still unspecific and far from interfering with the cause(s) of the disorder. This review attempts to describe what we know about processes that may cause lupus nephritis and how such basic processes may be affected if we can specifically interrupt them. Secondary inflammatory mechanisms, cytokine signatures, activation of complement, and other contributors to inflammation will not be discussed herein; rather, the events that trigger these factors will be discussed.