1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
3.1. Single-Cell RNA-Sequencing and Cellular Localization Analysis
3.2. Bulk RNA-Sequencing Analysis and Gene Set Enrichment
3.3. Protein–Protein Interaction Network and Hub Analysis
3.4. Cell Culture and Cisplatin Treatment
3.5. Cell Viability Assay
3.6. Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis in Cell Culture
3.7. Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
3.8. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
3.9. Statistical Analysis
4. Results
4.1. HAVCR1 Is a Proximal Tubule-Localized, Cell Surface Marker Associated with Epithelial Transport Functions
Proximal tubule-specific expression and early induction of HAVCR1 (KIM-1) in kidney injury models; A, left: Heatmap showing the expression of canonical marker genes used to define major kidney cell types. Right: UMAP projection of single-cell RNA-sequencing data from the Human Protein Atlas displaying 12 annotated kidney cell clusters; B, cluster-level bar plot showing HAVCR1 expression across kidney cell clusters, quantified as normalized transcript levels (nTPM). HAVCR1 expression is predominantly enriched in proximal tubular epithelial cell clusters (C0, C4, and C9); C, cellular localization of HAVCR1, identified as a type I transmembrane protein on the cell surface based on UniProt annotation; D, gene Ontology enrichment analysis of the HAVCR1 Neighborhood Signature (15 genes co-expressed with HAVCR1 in proximal tubular cells), performed using over-representation analysis. The bar plot displays the -log10 adjusted P-values for gene ontology terms that reached statistical significance (adjusted P < 0.05). Enriched categories span the three major Gene Ontology domains: Biological process, cellular component, and molecular function; E, UMAP visualization (left) of 113,579 mouse kidney cells, showing major renal cell populations. Samples included: Control (n = 6), IRI_short_1d (n = 2), IRI_short_3d (n = 2), IRI_short_14d (n = 2), IRI_long_1d (n = 2), IRI_long_3d (n = 2), and IRI_long_14d (n = 2). The dot plot (right) shows Havcr1 expression, where dot size indicates the percentage of expressing cells and color intensity reflects the average expression level. Havcr1 induction is predominantly observed in proximal tubule cells, with peak expression at day 1 following ischemia–reperfusion injury; F, UMAP feature plots show Havcr1 expression under control and ischemia–reperfusion injury conditions over time. Expression peaks at the first day post-injury and declines by days 3 and 14.
4.2. Early HAVCR1 Expression Reveals Proximal Tubule-Specific Response to Cisplatin-Induced Injury
HAVCR1/Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1) is transcriptionally and functionally induced by cisplatin exposure; A, volcano plot from RNA sequencing data (GSE227970) shows significant upregulation of HAVCR1 in cisplatin-treated HK-2 cells; B, gene Set Enrichment Analysis reveals enrichment of the HAVCR1 Neighborhood Signature (NES = 1.6, adjusted P = 0.01), indicating coordinated activation of proximal tubule injury-response genes; C, protein–protein interaction network generated from the HAVCR1 Neighborhood Signature using STRING and visualized in Cytoscape. Of the 15 genes in the signature, seven displayed interaction evidence in STRING at the predefined medium confidence threshold (≥ 0.4) and were therefore included in the network. Node color represents bottleneck centrality scores, with SLC22A8 identified as the top-ranked hub gene; D, cisplatin decreases HK-2 cell viability in a dose-dependent manner over 72 hours. Cell viability was calculated as the percentage of absorbance relative to untreated control cells at each time point. Data represent three independent biological replicates (n = 3 per group) and are shown as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons test. Significance is indicated as *P < 0.05, and ***P < 0.001; E, Bar plot of quantitative polymerase chain reaction results indicates a dose-dependent increase in HAVCR1, SLC17A1, and SLC17A3 mRNA expression following cisplatin treatment. Data represent three independent experiments (n = 3 per group) and are presented as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons test. Significance is indicated as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001; F, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay measurement of secreted KIM-1 protein shows a dose-dependent increase following cisplatin treatment. Data represent three independent experiments (n = 3 per group) and are shown as mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s post-hoc multiple comparisons test. Significance is indicated as *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, and ***P < 0.001.
4.3. in vitro Validation Reveals Early Dose-Dependent Induction of HAVCR1 by Cisplatin in Human Proximal Tubular Cells
4.4. Meta-Analysis Results Indicated That Urine KIM-1 Is an Early Biomarker of Cisplatin-Induced Acute Kidney Injury
| First Author, Publication Year | Country | Design | Population Settings Treated with Cisplatin- Based Chemotherapy | AKI Definition | Sample Size | AKI Patients | Age (y) | Males, N (%) | Baseline eGRF (mL/ min/1.73 m2) | Baseline Serum Creatinine, μmol/L | Cisplatin Dose, mg/m2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhu et al., 2023 (27) | China | Retrospective cohort | Patients with various types of malignancies | Increase in creatinine from baseline to peak of ≥ 0.3 mg/dL | 282 | 97 | 57.89 | 145 (51.4) | 110.30 | 63 | 90 |
| Miloševski-Lomić et al., 2025 (28) | Serbia | Cross-sectional study | Patients with various types of malignancies | KDIGO criteria | 13 | 2 | 5 | 25 (69.4) | 123.69 | 44.77 | 80 - 100 and then 20 |
| Shinke et al., 2015 (29) | Japan | Cross-sectional study | Patients with lung cancer | KDIGO criteria | 11 | NR | 65.9 | 7 (63.6) | NR | 66.32 | 80, 60, or 64 |
| Szumilas et al., 2024 (30) | Poland | Case-control study | Patients with various types of malignancies | KDIGO criteria | 21 | 4 | 56 | 14 (66.7) | NR | 57.47 | 69 |
| Tekce et al., 2015 (31) | Turkey | Prospective cohort | Patients with gastric or lung tumors | AKIN criteria | 22 | 8 | 57.32 | 16 (72.73) | 102.91 | 81.72 | 75 |
| Pavkovic et al., 2016 (32) | USA | Cohort | Patients with malignant mesothelioma undergoing cytoreductive surgery | AKIN criteria | 106 | 45 | 63.88 | 81 (76.41) | NR | NR | NR |
| Ghadrdan et al., 2020 (33) | Iran | Cohort | Patients with various types of malignancies | AKIN criteria | 35 | 7 | 51.83 | 25 (71.43) | 110.48 | 80.29 | 181.14 |
| McMahon et al., 2022 (34) | Canada | Prospective cohort | Patients with various types of malignancies | KDIGO criteria | 148 | 43 | 6.82 | 143 (50) | 145.19 | NR | 99.63 |
Abbreviations: AKI, acute kidney injury; KIM-1, kidney injury molecule-1.
| Study ID | Country | Design | AKI/nAKI | Age | % Male | Method | Cut-off (ng/mg) | eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | Culminative Cisplatin Dosage (mg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ghadrdan et al., 2020 (33) | Iran | Cohort | 7/28 | 51.83 | 71.43 | ELISA | 1.38 | 110.49 | 181.14 |
| McMahon et al., 2022 (34) | Canada | Cohort | 43/105 | 6.82 | 50 | ELISA | 0.573 | 145.19 | 99.63 |
| Tekce et al., 2015 (31) | Turkey | Cohort | 8/14 | 57.32 | 72.73 | ELISA | 0.510 | 102.91 | 75 |
Abbreviations: AKI, acute kidney injury; nAKI, non-AKI; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Meta-analysis evaluating the diagnostic performance of urine kidney injury molecule-1 (KIM-1) for early detection of cisplatin-induced AKI; A, quality evaluation of involved studies using the QUADAS-2 tool, illustrating risk of bias and applicability concerns; B, forest plots showing sensitivity and specificity of urine KIM-1 normalized by urine creatinine in each included study; C, summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and area under the curve (AUC) illustrating overall diagnostic accuracy.
| Diagnostic Accuracy Metric | Pooled Estimate (95% CI) |
|---|---|
| Pooled sensitivity | 0.53 (0.36 - 0.68) |
| Pooled specificity | 0.74 (0.62 - 0.84) |
| Pooled positive-likelihood ratio | 2.10 (1.38 - 3.21) |
| Pooled negative-likelihood ratio | 0.62 (0.45 - 0.87) |
| Diagnostic odds ratio | 3.36 (1.69 - 6.68) |
| AUC | 0.76 (0.65 - 0.86) |



