New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Blood Test Gives Early Warning of Failing Heart Transplant

The new DNA-based test predicts transplant rejection

Human heart art concept.

ANGELHELL Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Having heart transplant surgery is daunting enough. But in the months afterward the body's immune system sometimes attacks the donor organ, which can have deadly consequences. To check for inflammation (a sign of organ rejection), doctors have to snip and analyze a sliver of tissue from the recipient's new heart—typically about 16 times in the first year. “There is a risk of damage during the procedure, and the results are far from reliable, yet [such] biopsies are the current gold standard,” says cardiovascular medicine researcher Hannah Valantine of Stanford University.

But a new DNA-based blood test could give doctors crucial time to prevent sudden, early rejection of transplanted hearts. It would reduce the number of required invasive biopsies by about 80 percent, according to a study published in Circulation.

For each transplant in the study, co-author Valantine and her colleagues used blood samples to identify small genetic differences between heart donors and recipients. After the transplant, the researchers measured the percentage of donor-derived DNA in the recipients' blood plasma. Injured or dying cells from a transplanted heart release more donor DNA fragments than healthy cells do, so higher amounts of donor DNA imply a higher risk of rejection. With early warning doctors can start medical treatment to reverse the situation. The study analyzed blood samples from 171 recent transplant recipients and found rejection is likely when more than 0.25 percent of detected DNA is from the donor. The test provided a clearer signal and picked up rejection signs earlier than tissue biopsies did. It also revealed much earlier signs of a pernicious type of rejection, called antibody-mediated rejection, that biopsies can miss.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


About 44 percent of the recipients in the study were Black. This was particularly important, Valantine says, because multiple studies have established that African-Americans have a high risk of rejecting donor organs of all kinds.

The test looks promising, but long-term clinical utility studies are needed to evaluate how treatments based on test results fare, says University of British Columbia medical researcher Scott Tebbutt, who was not part of the study. Noninvasive tests are invaluable, Tebbutt says, and “reducing the number of biopsies even by half is a significant improvement to the quality of the patients' lives.”

Harini Barath is a freelance science writer based in Hanover, N.H.

More by Harini Barath
Scientific American Magazine Vol 324 Issue 5This article was published with the title “Heart Smarts” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 324 No. 5 (), p. 18
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0521-18b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe