Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 401–410 | Cite as

Markers of childhood lupus nephritis indicating disease activity

  • Monika Edelbauer
  • Sudhir Kshirsagar
  • Magdalena Riedl
  • Dieter Haffner
  • Heiko Billing
  • Burkhard Tönshoff
  • Sophia Ross
  • Jörg Dötsch
  • Oliver Amon
  • Henry Fehrenbach
  • Christian Steuber
  • Antje Beissert
  • Josef Hager
  • Gottfried Wechselberger
  • Lutz T. Weber
  • Lothar Bernd Zimmerhackl
Original Article


Current treatment regimens for childhood lupus nephritis (LN) are associated with significant side-effects and toxicity in vulnerable phases of growth and development. The paucity of biomarkers particularly in childhood impedes the appropriate clinical management and the development of new therapeutics. We analyzed markers of immune system (BAFF, RANTES), complement (Bb, C1q, C3d-CIC, C5a) and endothelial cell activation (sVCAM-1) in children with LN (n = 22, mean age 14.8 ± 4.7 years), nephrotic syndrome (n = 13) and age-matched healthy controls (n = 20) to define parameters that correlate with LN activity. Complement fragments of the alternative (Bb, p = 0.0004) classical (C3d-CIC, p < 0.0001) and common pathway (C5a, p < 0.0001) and the levels of BAFF (p < 0.0001), RANTES (p = 0.0002) and sVCAM-1 (p = 0.0004) were significantly higher in active compared to inactive LN. Activation of complement was associated with the occurrence of anti-C1q antibodies and reduced complement C1q. Complement-activation fragments highly correlated with the markers for immune system and endothelial cell activation. The ensemble of these parameters may be of great value in identifying early flares or remissions of childhood LN, and moreover may prove useful in the assessment of new treatments and in determining the optimization of their use.


Anti-C1q antibodies B cell activating factor C1q Complement activation products Lupus nephritis Soluble VCAM-1 RANTES 


Childhood lupus nephritis (LN) remains a significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenge due to its complex etiopathogenesis, heterogeneous presentation, and unpredictable course.

A complex interplay between abnormally activated B and T cells, antigen presenting cells, and the complement system results in the production of autoantibodies, circulating immune complexes (CIC), systemic complement activation, and finally, to multisystem injury including nephritis [1].

A crucial homeostatic cytokine for B cells that is up-regulated during inflammation and accounts for the perpetuation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is the B cell activation factor BAFF [2, 3]. RANTES (CCL5) is a key chemokine for T cell recruitment to inflammatory tissues and its expression is associated with renal damage [4, 5].

Complement itself can damage the kidney or attracts and activates leukocytes, which, in turn, cause inflammation and tissue destruction, and thus contributes significantly to the pathogenesis of LN [6, 7, 8]. During this inflammatory process, adhesion molecules including the vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (VCAM-1) that regulate the migration of leukocytes are up-regulated. Soluble VCAM-1 (sVCAM-1) has been reported as a useful marker of adult SLE activity [9, 10]. On the other hand, deficiency of the early classical pathway component C1q induces tissue damage [11, 12] and the occurrence of autoantibodies to C1q in SLE has been shown to be associated with hypocomplementemia and severe active LN [13, 14, 15].

In daily clinical practice, various parameters are currently used to assess SLE disease activity, including anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies (anti-dsDNA) and complement C3 and C4. Nevertheless, the utility of these markers in reflecting disease activity remains controversial [16, 17, 18], and C3 and C4 not always accurately reflect complement activation [16, 19, 20]. C3 acts as an acute-phase protein, and thus an increased production can obscure its consumption [21, 22]. Complement degradation products however are unique to complement activation, and can be easily and quickly detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), thus can be used in routine clinical practice. Though, various studies have shown relationships between complement consumption and SLE disease activity, most have been done in adults [22, 23, 24]. Studies in children with LN are limited and restricted to the analysis of individual parameters [25, 26].

The lack of reliable biomarkers for childhood LN that identify early flares or remissions and measure reliably a clinical response to therapy impedes the appropriate clinical management and the development of new therapeutics and evaluation in clinical trials.

Therefore, this multicenter study was designed (a) to determine whether parameters related to the multifactorial pathogenesis, namely complement-activation fragments of the alternative (Bb), classical (C1q, C3d fixing CIC) and final common pathway (C5a) and markers for immune system (BAFF, RANTES) and endothelial cell (sVCAM-1) activation correlate with the activity of childhood LN, and (b) to examine correlations between these markers and with complement C3, C4, and anti-ds DNA.

Patients and methods

Study population

Twenty-two pediatric patients with LN (mean age 14.8 ± 4.7 years) seen at the Department of Pediatrics in Innsbruck (A), Rostock (G), Muenchen (G), Heidelberg (G), Erlangen (G), Tuebingen (G), Memmingen (G), Wuerzburg (G), or Bremen (G) were included. All patients met the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) revised classification criteria for definite SLE with disease onset prior to 16 years of age [27, 28]. None of the children had a hereditary complement deficiency. Histology of renal biopsies was classified according to the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society [29].

To establish normal values for the parameters investigated, 20 healthy children undergoing examination for sport eligibility evaluation or surgery for hernia inguinalis, umbilicalis or phimosis, with similar age distribution were recruited at the Department of Surgery of the Innsbruck Medical University.

In order to assess the impact of immunosuppression on the markers analyzed, 13 children with nephrotic syndrome (NS), more specifically minimal change glomerulonephritis (MCGN) or focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS), and similar immunosuppressive therapy to children with LN were recruited at the Department of Pediatrics of the Innsbruck Medical University.

At the time of diagnosis demonstrated by renal biopsy and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index 2000 update SLEDAI-2K, flare or remission of LN, demonstrated by the renal score of the SLEDAI-2K or at routine follow-up appointments, plasma and serum samples were collected and stored in aliquots frozen at -80°C until further use.

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients and parents prior to inclusion. The study was approved by the local ethical committees.

Clinical evaluations

Clinical evidence of disease activity was assessed using the SLEDAI-2K that has been validated for use in children [30, 31, 32]. Active SLE was defined by a SLEDAI score ≥ 8 [33]. The physician completing the SLEDAI-2K was blinded to the complement split products, anti-C1q antibody, BAFF, RANTES, and sVCAM results.

Routine laboratory tests

Blood and urine samples were obtained at each visit. Routine laboratory tests included a complete blood cell count, platelet count, measurement of blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, serum C3 and C4 levels, serum anti-double stranded DNA (dsDNA), urine analysis, urine total protein/creatinine ratio measurement.

Definition of LN activity

LN activity was defined according to the renal score of the SLEDAI-2K [32, 34, 35].

Plasma complement products (Bb, C1q, C5a), C3d fixing CIC, and BAFF determinations

Plasma samples were evaluated using commercially available ELISA kits according to the assay procedure for the presence of Bb (Bb Plus ELISA, Quidel Corporation, San Diego, CA, USA), C1q (C1q ELISA, Hölzel Diagnostika GmbH, Cologne, Germany), C3d CIC (CIC C3d ELISA, DRG International Inc., USA), C5a (C5a ELISA, DRG International Inc., USA), BAFF (Human BAFF Immunoassay, R&D, Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA). All assays were performed in duplicates.

Serum antiC1q antibody, sVCAM, and RANTES measurements

AntiC1q antibodies, sVCAM, and RANTES were analyzed in serum samples by commercially available ELISA kits (Anti-C1q ELISA, Orgentec Diagnostika GmbH, Mainz, Germany; human sVCAM-1 Immunoassay and human CCL5/RANTES Immunoassay, both from R&D Systems, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA), according to the assay procedure. All assays were performed in duplicates.

Statistical analysis

Statistics and linear regression were calculated using GraphPad Prism version 4 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for comparisons and the Spearman's rank correlation test for correlations. The results are given as mean±SEM, if not otherwise indicated. Differences were considered significant if p values were less than 0.05. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves of sensitivity vs. 1 - specificity were used to determine whether sVCAM-1 could discriminate children with active from those with inactive LN. ROC curves were described quantitatively using the area under the curve (AUC). The ROC curve analysis was carried out with Analyze-It software (Ver. 1.44; Analyze-It Software).


Patients’ characteristics

Twenty-two patients with LN (mean age 14.8 ± 4.7 years, females (f)/males (m): 15/7), 13 patients with NS (f/m: 4/9) and 20 healthy controls (HC; f/m: 5/15) were enrolled in the study, and details are given in Table 1. In all patients (LN, nephrotic syndrome) the disease onset was prior to 16 years of age. Medications at the time of blood withdrawal are shown in Table 1. Three patients with LN had no treatment because of first diagnosis at study entry, and one patient with MCGN because of complete remission. Patients with NS were in remission at the time of the study, median duration of disease was 72 (range: 4-168) months.
Table 1

Characteristics of the study population





n = 22

n = 13

n = 20

Age, years (mean ± SD)a

14.8 ± 4.7

10.5 ± 5.0

12.3 ± 2.7

Phase of LN




No. of patients




Medications, No. (%) of patients


3 (21)


1 (7.7)

20 (100)


5 (36)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 S/p Cyclophosphamide

3 (21)

8 (53)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Cyclosporine A

1 (7)

2 (13)

6 (46.1)

0 (0)


0 (0)

3 (20)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Mycophenolate mofetil

10 (71)

8 (53)

3 (23.1)

0 (0)

 Prednisone <1 mg/kg/d

4 (29)

10 (67)

3 (23.1)

0 (0)

 Prednisone ≥ 1 mg/kg/d

7 (50)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

aAge at the time of the study (p = 0.11)

LN Lupus nephritis, NS nephrotic syndrome, No. Number, S/p status/post

Patients with LN

The median duration between the diagnosis of LN and the time of the study was 593 (range: 0-3156) days. LN was the first manifestation of SLE in 20 out of 22 patients, and in two patients, LN was diagnosed 1 year 8 months and 2 years after the first manifestation of SLE (arthritis). The median time of active LN when the samples where obtained was 2 (range: 0-91) days. The median time of remission of LN when the samples were obtained was 2.5 (range: 1-33) months.

Clinical and routine laboratory findings in patients with LN are shown in Table 2. At the time of blood withdrawal, only five of the patients had additional manifestations of lupus other than nephritis (arthritis, n = 2; new rash, n = 5; mucosal ulcers, n = 2; leukopenia, n = 2). Descriptors of the SLEDAI present at the time of blood withdrawal in the study population included arthritis, urinary casts, hematuria, proteinuria, pyuria, new rash, mucosal ulcers, low complement, increased DNA binding, and leukopenia.
Table 2

Clinical and routine laboratory data in patients with LN, n = 22


Active LN n = 14

Inactive LN n = 15

WHO class II, No. of patients



WHO class III, No. of patients



WHO class IV, No. of patients



SLEDAI-2K, median (range)

15 (8-24)

0 (0-4)

Complement C3 median (range), mg/dl

69.25 (30.0-93.0)

104.0 (79.0-161.0)

Complement C4 median (range), mg/dl

9.6 (4.0-13.0)

18.75 (11.80-31.70)

Urine protein to creatinine ratio median (range), g/g

2.75 (0.98-5.89)

0.16 (0.0-0.5)

Serum creatinine median (range), mg/dl

0.74 (0.42-3.53)

0.60 (0.42-0.80)

From seven patients, blood was obtained twice for analysis during the active and inactive phase of LN (Table 3).
Table 3

Longitudinal study in individual patients


WHO LN class


BAFF (pg/ml)

Anti-C1q (U/ml)

C1q (μg/ml)

Bb (μg/ml)

C3d-CIC (μg Eq./ml)

C5a (μg/l)

sVCAM (ng/ml)

Time between

Time between

Time between








A and Ia

A and Sb

I and Sc




1,562 / 595

103.7 / 56.5

137.6 / 139.2

2.18 / 0.98

21.8 / 7.5

2.40 / 0.24

653 / 638

2 months

19 days

2 months



Pred, MMF

3,246 / 773

203.5 / 88.4

85.0 / 150.9

2.30 / 1.58

30.3 / 7.7

5.21 / 0.87

769 / 739

1 month

1 day

1 month



Pred, CYC

3,091 / 802

243.8 / 71.6

91.4 / 118.5

2.59 / 1.18

45.5 / 10.5

7.54 / 0.44

851 / 625

8 months

1 day

2 months



Pred, CYC

7,242 / 873

950.7 / 48.0

52.3 / 166.6

3.31 / 1.97

74.3 / 9.1

8.35 / 1.12

1,403 / 853

7 months

12 days

3 months



Pred, CYC

4,587 / 949

745.7 / 71.9

70.0 / 92.3

2.70 / 1.21

96.4 / 18.8

9.39 / 0.47

1,854 / 611

16 months

0 days

2 months



Pred, CYC

6,938 / 961

1,050 / 93.7

37.0 / 123.2

4.79 / 2.05

50.5 / 10.7

7.53 / 0.87

1,731 / 703

11 months

1 day

2 months



Pred, CyA

3,247 / 978

902.3 / 35.5

58.5 / 201.0

2.54 / 1.22

25.3 / 8.3

5.53 / 0.37

1,388 / 579

12 months

2 days

11 months

A/I Active/inactive lupus nephritis (LN), CyA cyclosporine A, CYC cyclophosphamide, MMF mycophenolate mofetil, Pred prednisone

aPeriod of time between active and inactive phase of LN; bTime between diagnosis of active LN and study; cTime between diagnosis of inactive LN and study

Increased BAFF and RANTES levels in children with active LN

The mean BAFF concentration was significantly higher in patients with active (3,791 ± 632 pg/ml) than in those with inactive LN (956 ± 84 pg/ml, p < 0.0001), NS (824 ± 102 pg/ml, p < 0.0001) or healthy controls (HC; 667 ± 61 pg/ml, p < 0.0001, Fig. 1). In patients with inactive LN, BAFF levels were comparable to those of patients with NS (p = 0.3334), although there was a slight difference between mean BAFF levels in inactive LN and HC (p = 0.011, Fig. 1).
Fig. 1

Increased BAFF concentrations during flares of childhood lupus nephritis (LN). Plasma concentrations of BAFF were measured by ELISA. Levels in children with active LN were compared to those in children with inactive LN or nephrotic syndrome or healthy age-matched controls. Each symbol indicates an individual subject. The mean for each group is shown as a horizontal line

Children with LN showed increased levels of RANTES compared to HC (437.9 ± 79.15 pg/ml in active LN and 105.9 ± 21.22 pg/ml in inactive LN versus 41.63 ± 3.819 pg/ml in HC, p < 0.0001).

Antibodies against C1q in children with severe active lupus nephritis

Children with active LN showed significantly higher concentrations of anti-C1q antibodies (576.9 ± 92.3 U/ml) than those with inactive LN (73.1 ± 17.0 U/ml, p < 0.0001), NS (7.0 ± 1.9 U/ml, p < 0.0001) or HC (3.3 ± 0.9 U/ml, p < 0.0001, Fig. 2a). Also, in children with inactive LN, mean anti-C1q antibody levels were higher than in children with NS (p < 0.0001) or HC (p < 0.0001, Fig. 2a). Among children with active LN, those with WHO class IV nephritis showed the highest levels of anti-C1q (Fig. 2b)
Fig. 2

Children with active LN show high levels of anti-C1q antibodies. a Concentrations of anti-C1q were detected by ELISA in serum samples from children with active or inactive LN, NS, or age-matched healthy controls. b In children with active LN, anti-C1q levels were further grouped according to the WHO classes of LN. Symbols represent individual data points, and the horizontal lines represent means

Low levels of the first component of the classical pathway C1q in active lupus nephritis

Mean concentrations of C1q in children with active LN (74.4 ± 8.3 μg/ml) were significantly lower than those in children with inactive LN (175.4 ± 16.6 μg/ml, p < 0.0001), NS (115.3 ± 11.1 μg/ml, p = 0.0082) or HC (135.0 ± 7.224 μg/ml, p < 0.0001), Fig. 3. Children with inactive LN, however, had increased C1q compared to children with NS (p = 0.0087) as well as HC (p = 0.0474), Fig. 3. In children with LN, a significant inverse correlation was detected between the levels of anti-C1q antibodies and circulating C1q (r = -0.7213, p < 0.0001).
Fig. 3

Decrease of C1q during flares of LN in children. Plasma C1q concentrations in children with active or inactive LN, NS, or age-matched healthy controls were analyzed by ELISA. Each symbol indicates an individual subject. The mean for each group is shown as a horizontal line

High concentrations of Bb, C3d fixing CIC, and C5a in active LN

In children with active LN, the mean concentrations of Bb (2.59 ± 0.22 μg/ml) were significantly higher than those in children with inactive LN (1.68 ± 0.13 μg/ml, p = 0.0004), and the latter again were higher than in children with NS (0.94 ± 0.07 μg/ml, p = 0.0003) or HC (0.89 ± 0.05 μg/ml, p = 0.0003, Fig. 4a).
Fig. 4

High levels of complement split products in active LN. In children with active or inactive LN, NS, or age-matched healthy controls plasma concentrations of a Bb, b C3d-CIC, and c C5a was measured using ELISA. Symbols represent individual data points, and the horizontal lines represent means

As shown in Fig. 4b and c, children with active LN showed high levels of C3d fixing CIC (42.3 ± 7.2 μg Eq./ml) and of C5a (5.83 ± 0.72 μg/l), which were significantly different from those in children with inactive LN (10.8 ± 1.5 μg Eq./ml, p < 0.0001; 0.51 ± 0.11 μg/l, p < 0.0001, respectively), NS (8.3 ± 0.84 μg Eq./ml, p < 0.0001; 0.22 ± 0.05 μg/l, p < 0.0001, respectively) or HC (6.2 ± 0.41 μg Eq./ml, p < 0.0001; 0.19 ± 0.04 μg/l, p < 0.0001, respectively).

Changes of soluble VCAM-1 concentrations according to LN activity

As shown in Fig. 5, sVCAM-1 was increased in children with active LN (1,255 ± 116 ng/ml) compared to inactive LN (674 ± 31 ng/ml, p = 0.0004), NS (607 ± 35 ng/ml, p < 0.0001) or HC (596 ± 29 ng/ml, p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in sVCAM-1 concentrations among the other groups (inactive LN, NS, HC). ROC curves of sensitivity vs. 1 - specificity were used to determine whether sVCAM-1 could discriminate children with active from those with inactive LN. A sVCAM-1 value of 769 ng/ml had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 80% for discriminating active from inactive LN. The AUC for sVCAM-1 was 0.93, thus sVCAM-1 can be used to identify active LN in children.
Fig. 5

Rise of sVCAM-1 in children with active LN. sVCAM levels were detected in serum samples from children with active or inactive LN, NS, or healthy age-matched controls. Each symbol indicates an individual subject. The mean for each group is shown as a horizontal line

Longitudinal studies in individual patients with LN

From seven patients, blood samples were obtained twice for analysis in the active and inactive phase of LN. Changes of the immune system, complement and endothelial cell activation markers in these patients, the treatment regimens given at the time of diagnosis of active LN, the period of time between active and inactive phase of LN, between diagnosis of active or inactive LN and study are shown in Table 3.

Correlations of C3, C4, and anti-dsDNA with markers for immune system or endothelial cell activation and complement-activation fragments in LN

While in children with LN the complement-activation fragments correlated highly (p < 0.001) with the markers for immune system and endothelial cell activation and C1q, complement C3 correlated moderately (p < 0.01), complement C4 slightly (p < 0.05), and anti-dsDNA correlated slightly only with BAFF, C1q, and antiC1q (Table 4).
Table 4

Correlations of C3, C4, and anti-dsDNA with markers for immune system or endothelial cell activation and complement-activation fragments




antiC1q ab






r / p

r / p

r / p

r / p

r / p

r / p

r / p

r / p


-0.48 / 0.0144

0.50 / 0.0106

-0.57 / 0.0032

-0.61 / 0.0012

-0.50 / 0.0111

-0.48 / 0.0141

-0.57 / 0.0032

-0.66 / 0.0079


-0.43 / 0.0313

0.45 / 0.0231

-0.45 / 0.0251

-0.50 / 0.0116

-0.47 / 0.0158

-0.47 / 0.017

-0.42 / 0.0347

-0.42 / 0.0350


0.27 / 0.2032

-0.42 / 0.0379

0.41 / 0.0399

0.42 / 0.0455

0.32 / 0.1142

0.43 / 0.0400

0.33 / 0.1053

0.33 / 0.1118


0.58 / 0.0009

-0.73 / 0.0013

0.64 / 0.0002

0.65 / 0.0001

0.66 / 0.0004



0.59 / 0.0007

-0.83 / 0.0001

0.88 / 0.0001

0.61 / 0.0005

0.59 / 0.0009



0.59 / 0.0007

-0.60 / 0.0006

0.59 / 0.0009

0.58 / 0.0009

0.61 / 0.0005


dsDNA anti-double-stranded DNA antibodies; antiC1q ab anti-C1q antibodies, C3d-CIC C3d fixing circulating immune complexes


In this study, we demonstrated that in children with LN complement split products of the alternative (Bb), classical (C3d-CIC), and common complement pathway (C5a) were significantly increased while C1q was reduced during active disease. This study is the first to compare levels of BAFF, RANTES, anti-C1q antibodies, complement activation products, and sVCAM-1 in the same pediatric patients with LN, thus taking into consideration the multifactorial pathogenesis. We also found significant correlations between these parameters and with LN activity.

Considering the cascade of immunological and complement-related events leading to renal inflammation, we propose that in children with LN the measurement of Bb, C1q, anti-C1q antibodies, C3d-CIC, C5a, BAFF, RANTES, and sVCAM-1 allows early and reliable detection of renal flares and of response to therapy, prior to changes in complement C3 and C4, renal function, proteinuria, and urinary sediment.

However, our observations are limited to a small study population. Validation in large longitudinal studies that also include recently described urinary biomarkers for disease activity in childhood LN [4, 36, 37, 38], correlations with the activity and chronicity scores in renal biopsy, and lupus patients without nephritis is required to enhance the clinical utility, to assess the precise predictive value of these parameters, and to define levels that indicate the necessity for therapeutic intervention or discontinuation.

Auto-antibodies against C1q are directed against a highly functional molecule that plays important roles in preventing autoimmunity [39, 40, 41]. Here, we show a strong correlation between the occurrence of anti-C1q antibodies, up-regulation of BAFF, consumption of C1q, and elevated levels of sVCAM-1 in children with active LN. Macrophages and dendritic cells that are significantly altered in patients with SLE are the major source of C1q [42, 43, 44]. IFN-α that is highly expressed during active LN [45, 46] inhibits the synthesis of C1q, and thus could contribute (in addition to anti-C1q antibodies) to the low levels of C1q in active LN, while the distinct cytokine milieu in inactive LN might favor the synthesis of C1q, which could explain the elevated levels observed in our study.

There is increasing evidence from animal models that the alternative pathway is importantly involved in LN [47, 48]. Here, we show that in children with LN, the alternative complement pathway is indeed activated during renal flares, indicating its pathogenic significance and diagnostic value. The major cause of complement activation in SLE although is thought to be the formation of immune complexes that in turn activate complement via the classical pathway [49]. In children with active LN we found high levels of circulating C3d fixing CIC. This is in line with previous studies in adults, showing that serum levels of C3d-fixing immune complexes correlate significantly with renal mesangial C3d deposits and disease activity [50].

The anaphylatoxins, especially C5a, are the key mediators of the complement system that induce renal injury [51, 52]. Experimental models showed a critical role of C5a in the pathogenesis of LN; and inhibition of C5 was found to be protective [53, 54]. As demonstrated, children suffering from LN have high C5a levels during active disease, indicating its pathogenic significance in childhood LN.

Complement activation enhances leukocyte infiltration and the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the kidney [55]. VCAM-1 induced in endothelial cells following activation by cytokines [56] is expressed in lupus nephritis [57, 58]. Children with systemic complement activation and active LN had high levels of sVCAM-1, suggesting that sVCAM-1 can serve as a marker of the ongoing inflammatory processes in LN.

Although current treatment regimens as demonstrated are able to suppress disease activity and complement activation in children with LN, medication associated toxicity is high. Moreover, despite treatment, some patients develop progressive renal injury resulting in end-stage renal disease, and those patients who respond to treatment remain at risk of disease relapse [59].

The use of inhibitors of the terminal complement pathway that leave the beneficial effects of the classical pathway unaffected may represent an important therapeutic strategy for human LN.

We conclude that the magnitude of complement activation occurring during flares of LN in childhood can be quantified by measuring its split products. In view of the multi-factorial pathogenesis, we propose that the ensemble of the markers, namely BAFF, RANTES, complement components of the classical, alternative, and common pathway (C1q, Bb, C3d-CIC, C5a), antibodies to C1q and sVCAM-1, may be of great value in the early identification of flares or remissions of childhood LN to reliably measure a clinical response and thus to guide therapy in daily clinical practice. Moreover, their use may provide an important advance in the assessment of new treatments and in determining the optimization of their use.



This work was supported by an OeNB Jubilaeumsfonds Grant (13334) and a Medizinischer Forschungsfonds Tirol grant to ME.


All the authors declared no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Yanaba K, Bouaziz JD, Matsushita T, Magro CM, St Clair EW, Tedder TF (2008) B-lymphocyte contributions to human autoimmune disease. Immunol Rev 223:284–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chu VT, Enghard P, Schurer S, Steinhauser G, Rudolph B, Riemekasten G, Berek C (2009) Systemic activation of the immune system induces aberrant BAFF and APRIL expression in B cells in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 60:2083–2093PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cancro MP, D'Cruz DP, Khamashta MA (2009) The role of B lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) in systemic lupus erythematosus. J Clin Invest 119:1066–1073PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Das L, Brunner HI (2009) Biomarkers for renal disease in childhood. Curr Rheumatol Rep 11:218–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fu Q, Chen X, Cui H, Guo Y, Chen J, Shen N, Bao C (2008) Association of elevated transcript levels of interferon-inducible chemokines with disease activity and organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Arthritis Res Ther 10:R112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bao L, Quigg RJ (2007) Complement in lupus nephritis: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Semin Nephrol 27:69–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seelen MA, Daha MR (2006) The role of complement in autoimmune renal disease. Autoimmunity 39:411–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walport MJ (2001) Complement. First of two parts. N Engl J Med 344:1058–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spronk PE, Bootsma H, Huitema MG, Limburg PC, Kallenberg CG (1994) Levels of soluble VCAM-1, soluble ICAM-1, and soluble E-selectin during disease exacerbations in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); a long-term prospective study. Clin Exp Immunol 97:439–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wellicome SM, Kapahi P, Mason JC, Lebranchu Y, Yarwood H, Haskard DO (1993) Detection of a circulating form of vascular cell adhesion molecule-1: raised levels in rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Immunol 92:412–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manderson AP, Botto M, Walport MJ (2004) The role of complement in the development of systemic lupus erythematosus. Annu Rev Immunol 22:431–456PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pickering MC, Botto M, Taylor PR, Lachmann PJ, Walport MJ (2000) Systemic lupus erythematosus, complement deficiency, and apoptosis. Adv Immunol 76:227–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Trendelenburg M, Marfurt J, Gerber I, Tyndall A, Schifferli JA (1999) Lack of occurrence of severe lupus nephritis among anti-C1q autoantibody-negative patients. Arthritis Rheum 42:187–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kozyro I, Korosteleva L, Chernoshej D, Danner D, Sukalo A, Trendelenburg M (2008) Autoantibodies against complement C1q in acute post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis. Clin Immunol 128:409–414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Trendelenburg M, Lopez-Trascasa M, Potlukova E, Moll S, Regenass S, Fremeaux-Bacchi V, Martinez-Ara J, Jancova E, Picazo ML, Honsova E, Tesar V, Sadallah S, Schifferli J (2006) High prevalence of anti-C1q antibodies in biopsy-proven active lupus nephritis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 21:3115–3121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merrill JT, Buyon JP (2005) The role of biomarkers in the assessment of lupus. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 19:709–726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lefkowith JB, Gilkeson GS (1996) Nephritogenic autoantibodies in lupus: current concepts and continuing controversies. Arthritis Rheum 39:894–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Illei GG, Tackey E, Lapteva L, Lipsky PE (2004) Biomarkers in systemic lupus erythematosus. I. General overview of biomarkers and their applicability. Arthritis Rheum 50:1709–1720PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valentijn RM, van Overhagen H, Hazevoet HM, Hermans J, Cats A, Daha MR, van EL (1985) The value of complement and immune complex determinations in monitoring disease activity in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 28:904–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunsicker LG, Ruddy S, Carpenter CB, Schur PH, Merrill JP, Muller-Eberhard HJ, Austen KF (1972) Metabolism of third complement component (C3) in nephritis. Involvement of the classic and alternate (properdin) pathways for complement activation. N Engl J Med 287:835–840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schur PH (1982) Complement and lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 25:793–798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sturfelt G, Sjoholm AG (1984) Complement components, complement activation, and acute phase response in systemic lupus erythematosus. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 75:75–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manzi S, Rairie JE, Carpenter AB, Kelly RH, Jagarlapudi SP, Sereika SM, Medsger TA Jr, Ramsey-Goldman R (1996) Sensitivity and specificity of plasma and urine complement split products as indicators of lupus disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 39:1178–1188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ceribelli A, Andreoli L, Cavazzana I, Franceschini F, Radice A, Rimoldi L, Sinico RA, Carlsson M, Wieslander J, Tincani A (2009) Complement cascade in systemic lupus erythematosus: analyses of the three activation pathways. Ann NY Acad Sci 1173:427–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jesus AA, Silva CA, Carneiro-Sampaio M, Sheinberg M, Mangueira CL, Marie SK, Liphaus BL (2009) Anti-C1q antibodies in juvenile-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann NY Acad Sci 1173:235–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wu YL, Higgins GC, Rennebohm RM, Chung EK, Yang Y, Zhou B, Nagaraja HN, Birmingham DJ, Rovin BH, Hebert LA, Yu CY (2006) Three distinct profiles of serum complement C4 proteins in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients: tight associations of complement C4 and C3 protein levels in SLE but not in healthy subjects. Adv Exp Med Biol 586:227–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hochberg MC (1997) Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 40:1725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ferraz MB, Goldenberg J, Hilario MO, Bastos WA, Oliveira SK, Azevedo EC, di Napoli D (1994) Evaluation of the 1982 ARA lupus criteria data set in pediatric patients. Committees of Pediatric Rheumatology of the Brazilian Society of Pediatrics and the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. Clin Exp Rheumatol 12:83–87PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weening JJ, D'Agati VD, Schwartz MM, Seshan SV, Alpers CE, Appel GB, Balow JE, Bruijn JA, Cook T, Ferrario F, Fogo AB, Ginzler EM, Hebert L, Hill G, Hill P, Jennette JC, Kong NC, Lesavre P, Lockshin M, Looi LM, Makino H, Moura LA, Nagata M (2004) The classification of glomerulonephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus revisited. J Am Soc Nephrol 15:241–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bombardier C, Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Caron D, Chang CH (1992) Derivation of the SLEDAI. A disease activity index for lupus patients. The Committee on Prognosis Studies in SLE. Arthritis Rheum 35:630–640PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brunner HI, Feldman BM, Bombardier C, Silverman ED (1999) Sensitivity of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index, British Isles Lupus Assessment Group Index, and Systemic Lupus Activity Measure in the evaluation of clinical change in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 42:1354–1360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gladman DD, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB (2002) Systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity index 2000. J Rheumatol 29:288–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gladman DD, Urowitz MB, Kagal A, Hallett D (2000) Accurately describing changes in disease activity in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. J Rheumatol 27:377–379PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rahman P, Gladman DD, Ibanez D, Urowitz MB (2001) Significance of isolated hematuria and isolated pyuria in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 10:418–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hay EM, Bacon PA, Gordon C, Isenberg DA, Maddison P, Snaith ML, Symmons DP, Viner N, Zoma A (1993) The BILAG index: a reliable and valid instrument for measuring clinical disease activity in systemic lupus erythematosus. Q J Med 86:447–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hinze CH, Suzuki M, Klein-Gitelman M, Passo MH, Olson J, Singer NG, Haines KA, Onel K, O'Neil K, Silverman ED, Tucker L, Ying J, Devarajan P, Brunner HI (2009) Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin is a predictor of the course of global and renal childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus disease activity. Arthritis Rheum 60:2772–2781PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rubinstein T, Pitashny M, Levine B, Schwartz N, Schwartzman J, Weinstein E, Pego-Reigosa JM, Lu TY, Isenberg D, Rahman A, Putterman C (2010) Urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin as a novel biomarker for disease activity in lupus nephritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 49:960–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Marks SD, Shah V, Pilkington C, Tullus K (2010) Urinary monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 correlates with disease activity in lupus nephritis. Pediatr Nephrol 25:2283–2288PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bigler C, Schaller M, Perahud I, Osthoff M, Trendelenburg M (2009) Autoantibodies against complement C1q specifically target C1q bound on early apoptotic cells. J Immunol 183:3512–3521PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Davies KA, Peters AM, Beynon HL, Walport MJ (1992) Immune complex processing in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. In vivo imaging and clearance studies. J Clin Invest 90:2075–2083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Truedsson L, Bengtsson AA, Sturfelt G (2007) Complement deficiencies and systemic lupus erythematosus. Autoimmunity 40:560–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Castellano G, Woltman AM, Nauta AJ, Roos A, Trouw LA, Seelen MA, Schena FP, Daha MR, van Kooten C (2004) Maturation of dendritic cells abrogates C1q production in vivo and in vitro. Blood 103:3813–3820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kaul M, Loos M (2001) Expression of membrane C1q in human monocyte-derived macrophages is developmentally regulated and enhanced by interferon-gamma. FEBS Lett 500:91–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Blanco P, Palucka AK, Gill M, Pascual V, Banchereau J (2001) Induction of dendritic cell differentiation by IFN-alpha in systemic lupus erythematosus. Science 294:1540–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Dall'era MC, Cardarelli PM, Preston BT, Witte A, Davis JC Jr (2005) Type I interferon correlates with serological and clinical manifestations of SLE. Ann Rheum Dis 64:1692–1697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Feng X, Wu H, Grossman JM, Hanvivadhanakul P, FitzGerald JD, Park GS, Dong X, Chen W, Kim MH, Weng HH, Furst DE, Gorn A, McMahon M, Taylor M, Brahn E, Hahn BH, Tsao BP (2006) Association of increased interferon-inducible gene expression with disease activity and lupus nephritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 54:2951–2962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Elliott MK, Jarmi T, Ruiz P, Xu Y, Holers VM, Gilkeson GS (2004) Effects of complement factor D deficiency on the renal disease of MRL/lpr mice. Kidney Int 65:129–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vieyra MB, Heeger PS (2010) Novel aspects of complement in kidney injury. Kidney Int 77:495–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chen M, Daha MR, Kallenberg CG (2010) The complement system in systemic autoimmune disease. J Autoimmun 34:J276–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Muso E, Sekita K, Doi T, Kuwahara T, Yoshida H, Tamura T, Kawai C, Hamashima Y (1984) Immunopathological correlation between mesangial C3d-deposition and C3d-fixing circulating immune complexes in lupus nephritis. Clin Immunol Immunopathol 32:351–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wenderfer SE, Ke B, Hollmann TJ, Wetsel RA, Lan HY, Braun MC (2005) C5a receptor deficiency attenuates T cell function and renal disease in MRLlpr mice. J Am Soc Nephrol 16:3572–3582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wittmann M, Zwirner J, Larsson VA, Kirchhoff K, Begemann G, Kapp A, Gotze O, Werfel T (1999) C5a suppresses the production of IL-12 by IFN-gamma-primed and lipopolysaccharide-challenged human monocytes. J Immunol 162:6763–6769PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bao L, Osawe I, Puri T, Lambris JD, Haas M, Quigg RJ (2005) C5a promotes development of experimental lupus nephritis which can be blocked with a specific receptor antagonist. Eur J Immunol 35:2496–2506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bao L, Haas M, Kraus DM, Hack BK, Rakstang JK, Holers VM, Quigg RJ (2003) Administration of a soluble recombinant complement C3 inhibitor protects against renal disease in MRL/lpr mice. J Am Soc Nephrol 14:670–679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    David S, Biancone L, Caserta C, Bussolati B, Cambi V, Camussi G (1997) Alternative pathway complement activation induces proinflammatory activity in human proximal tubular epithelial cells. Nephrol Dial Transplant 12:51–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Byrne GJ, Ghellal A, Iddon J, Blann AD, Venizelos V, Kumar S, Howell A, Bundred NJ (2000) Serum soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1: role as a surrogate marker of angiogenesis. J Natl Cancer Inst 92:1329–1336PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Nakatani K, Fujii H, Hasegawa H, Terada M, Arita N, Ito MR, Ono M, Takahashi S, Saiga K, Yoshimoto S, Iwano M, Shiiki H, Saito Y, Nose M (2004) Endothelial adhesion molecules in glomerular lesions: association with their severity and diversity in lupus models. Kidney Int 65:1290–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Seron D, Cameron JS, Haskard DO (1991) Expression of VCAM-1 in the normal and diseased kidney. Nephrol Dial Transplant 6:917–922PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brunner HI, Silverman ED, To T, Bombardier C, Feldman BM (2002) Risk factors for damage in childhood-onset systemic lupus erythematosus: cumulative disease activity and medication use predict disease damage. Arthritis Rheum 46:436–444PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monika Edelbauer
    • 1
  • Sudhir Kshirsagar
    • 1
  • Magdalena Riedl
    • 1
  • Dieter Haffner
    • 2
  • Heiko Billing
    • 3
  • Burkhard Tönshoff
    • 3
  • Sophia Ross
    • 4
  • Jörg Dötsch
    • 5
  • Oliver Amon
    • 6
  • Henry Fehrenbach
    • 7
  • Christian Steuber
    • 8
  • Antje Beissert
    • 9
  • Josef Hager
    • 10
  • Gottfried Wechselberger
    • 11
  • Lutz T. Weber
    • 12
  • Lothar Bernd Zimmerhackl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pediatrics IInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  2. 2.Universitäts-Kinder- und JugendklinikUniversität RostockRostockGermany
  3. 3.Zentrum für Kinder- und JugendmedizinUniversitätsklinikum HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany
  4. 4.Kinder- und Jugendklinik der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-NürnbergErlangen-NürnbergGermany
  5. 5.Kinder- und Jugendklinik, Universität KölnCologneGermany
  6. 6.Klinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Universitätsklinikum TübingenTübingenGermany
  7. 7.Klinik für Kinderheilkunde und Jugendmedizin, Klinikum MemmingenMemmingenGermany
  8. 8.Klinikum Links der WeserBremenGermany
  9. 9.Universitäts-Kinderklinik WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  10. 10.Department of Pediatric Surgery of the Department of Visceral, Transplant and Thoracic SurgeryInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  11. 11.Department of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryInnsbruck Medical UniversityInnsbruckAustria
  12. 12.Dr. von Haunersches KinderspitalKlinikum der Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations