Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Xenograft rejection of fetal porcine islet‐like cell clusters in the rat: effects of active and passive immunization

Xenograft rejection of fetal porcine islet‐like cell clusters in the rat: effects of active and... The process of islet xenograft rejection is still poorly understood. To elucidate further possible mechanism(s) involved in xenograft rejection, the effect of different immunization protocols was investigated. Fetal porcine islet‐like cell clusters (ICCs) were transplanted under the kidney capsule in otherwise untreated rats, rats pre‐immunized by s.c. injections of ICCs and in rats passively immunized with immune serum. The rejection process was evaluated with regard to antibody and complement deposition in the graft, as well as to morphology and phenotype of the infiltrating cells. In otherwise untreated animals, a moderate perigraft mononuclear cell infiltrate was seen after 3 days. Graft destruction became evident on day 6 with marked intragraft infiltration by macrophages (ED1 positive), whereas T cells were in the minority and mainly located in the perigraft area. In contrast to the findings in non‐immunized rats, the rejection process in pre‐immunized rats was characterized by marked intragraft infiltration by macrophages 3 days after transplantation. Moreover, both T cells and macrophages heavily infiltrated the adjacent kidney parenchyma, and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II expression in surrounding kidney tubular cells was concomitantly enhanced. Syngeneic rat islets mixed with porcine ICCs escaped the rejection process in non‐immunized rats but were affected in pre‐immunized animals. Thus, the specificity of the rejection process in non‐immunized animals seems to be lost in pre‐immunized animals. The early macrophage infiltration was also accelerated in rats passively immunized with immune serum, but no early switch from perigraft to intragraft infiltration or subsequent cellular infiltration in the adjacent kidney parenchyma was seen. Circulating xenoreactive antibodies of the IgG isotype increased after transplantation in normal and otherwise untreated rats. No distinct IgG deposition in the ICC xenografts was observed until day 12 after transplantation in untreated rats, whereas perigraft deposition of IgG was found 1 day after transplantation in pre‐immunized rats and in rats given immune serum. No deposition of complement was observed within the ICC xenograft in any of the groups during the observation period. The dependence on T cells, the massive infiltration of macrophages with a unique phenotype, the cellular distribution, and the loss of specificity (bystander killing) of the rejection process in immunized rats suggest that ICC xenograft rejection shares some of its main characteristics with a delayed type hypersensitivity‐like (DTH) immune response. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Xenotransplantation Wiley

Xenograft rejection of fetal porcine islet‐like cell clusters in the rat: effects of active and passive immunization

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/xenograft-rejection-of-fetal-porcine-islet-like-cell-clusters-in-the-OmTiwg3aYa

References (20)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0908-665X
eISSN
1399-3089
DOI
10.1034/j.1399-3089.1999.00032.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The process of islet xenograft rejection is still poorly understood. To elucidate further possible mechanism(s) involved in xenograft rejection, the effect of different immunization protocols was investigated. Fetal porcine islet‐like cell clusters (ICCs) were transplanted under the kidney capsule in otherwise untreated rats, rats pre‐immunized by s.c. injections of ICCs and in rats passively immunized with immune serum. The rejection process was evaluated with regard to antibody and complement deposition in the graft, as well as to morphology and phenotype of the infiltrating cells. In otherwise untreated animals, a moderate perigraft mononuclear cell infiltrate was seen after 3 days. Graft destruction became evident on day 6 with marked intragraft infiltration by macrophages (ED1 positive), whereas T cells were in the minority and mainly located in the perigraft area. In contrast to the findings in non‐immunized rats, the rejection process in pre‐immunized rats was characterized by marked intragraft infiltration by macrophages 3 days after transplantation. Moreover, both T cells and macrophages heavily infiltrated the adjacent kidney parenchyma, and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II expression in surrounding kidney tubular cells was concomitantly enhanced. Syngeneic rat islets mixed with porcine ICCs escaped the rejection process in non‐immunized rats but were affected in pre‐immunized animals. Thus, the specificity of the rejection process in non‐immunized animals seems to be lost in pre‐immunized animals. The early macrophage infiltration was also accelerated in rats passively immunized with immune serum, but no early switch from perigraft to intragraft infiltration or subsequent cellular infiltration in the adjacent kidney parenchyma was seen. Circulating xenoreactive antibodies of the IgG isotype increased after transplantation in normal and otherwise untreated rats. No distinct IgG deposition in the ICC xenografts was observed until day 12 after transplantation in untreated rats, whereas perigraft deposition of IgG was found 1 day after transplantation in pre‐immunized rats and in rats given immune serum. No deposition of complement was observed within the ICC xenograft in any of the groups during the observation period. The dependence on T cells, the massive infiltration of macrophages with a unique phenotype, the cellular distribution, and the loss of specificity (bystander killing) of the rejection process in immunized rats suggest that ICC xenograft rejection shares some of its main characteristics with a delayed type hypersensitivity‐like (DTH) immune response.

Journal

XenotransplantationWiley

Published: Dec 1, 1999

There are no references for this article.