Abstract. The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving Ͻ50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving Ն50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions]. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.The morphologic changes in a renal biopsy from a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) comprise a spectrum of vascular, glomerular, and tubulointerstitial lesions. The classification of SLE nephritis has evolved over the past 40 years as more lesions were identified and defined. It has been an increasing challenge to apply new pathogenetic insights to the interpretation of the renal biopsy in SLE and to correlate pathologic findings with clinical symptoms, choice of treatment, and prognosis. The current classification, which was advanced in 1982 (1) and revised in 1995 (2), reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of renal injury in SLE nephritis. However, subsequent clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for clarification of the different categories and the diagnostic terminology. The clas-

The currently used classification reflects our understanding of the pathogenesis of the various forms of lupus nephritis, but clinicopathologic studies have revealed the need for improved categorization and terminology. Based on the 1982 classification published under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO) and subsequent clinicopathologic data, we propose that class I and II be used for purely mesangial involvement (I, mesangial immune deposits without mesangial hypercellularity; II, mesangial immune deposits with mesangial hypercellularity); class III for focal glomerulonephritis (involving <50% of total number of glomeruli) with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class IV for diffuse glomerulonephritis (involving > or =50% of total number of glomeruli) either with segmental (class IV-S) or global (class IV-G) involvement, and also with subdivisions for active and sclerotic lesions; class V for membranous lupus nephritis; and class VI for advanced sclerosing lesions. Combinations of membranous and proliferative glomerulonephritis (i.e., class III and V or class IV and V) should be reported individually in the diagnostic line. The diagnosis should also include entries for any concomitant vascular or tubulointerstitial lesions. One of the main advantages of the current revised classification is that it provides a clear and unequivocal description of the various lesions and classes of lupus nephritis, allowing a better standardization and lending a basis for further clinicopathologic studies. We hope that this revision, which evolved under the auspices of the International Society of Nephrology and the Renal Pathology Society, will contribute to further advancement of the WHO classification.

In order to establish whether extra-renal cells contribute to the turnover and repair of renal tissues, this study examined kidneys of female mice that had received a male bone marrow transplant and kidney biopsies from male patients who had received kidney transplants from female donors. By using in situ hybridization to detect Y-chromosomes it could be demonstrated that circulating stem cells frequently engraft into the kidney and differentiate into renal parenchymal cells. In the human renal grafts it was confirmed that some of the recipient-derived cells within the kidney exhibited a tubular epithelial phenotype, by combining in situ hybridization with immunostaining for the epithelial markers CAM 5.2 and the lectin Ulex europaeus. Female mouse recipients of male bone marrow grafts showed co-localization of Y-chromosomes and tubular epithelial markers Ricinus communis and Lens culinaris, and a specific cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP1A2) indicating an appropriate functional capability of clustered newly formed marrow-derived tubular epithelial cells. Y-chromosome-containing cells were observed within glomeruli, with morphology and location appropriate for podocytes. Within the murine kidney, these Y-chromosome-positive cells were negative for the mouse macrophage marker F4/80 antigen and leukocyte common antigen, but were vimentin-positive. The presence of bone marrow-derived cells was noted in both histologically normal mouse kidneys and in human transplanted kidneys suffering damage from a variety of causes. These data indicate that bone marrow cells contribute to both normal turnover of renal epithelia and regeneration after damage, and it is suggested that this could be exploited therapeutically.

DQ DSAbs are associated with inferior allograft outcomes. This study shows the importance of establishing the DQ match before transplantation to define immunologic risk.

No abstract