Porcine Cytomegalovirus in Xenotransplantation: the New Frontier in Human Transplantation?
Björn Nashan
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.7
2022-01-01
Health Care Science
Abstract:Health Care ScienceVolume 1, Issue 1 p. 11-13 EDITORIALOpen Access Porcine cytomegalovirus in xenotransplantation: The new frontier in human transplantation? Björn Nashan, Corresponding Author Björn Nashan bjoern.nashan@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-9935 Department of Organ Transplantation Center, First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China Correspondence Björn Nashan, Department of Organ Transplantation Center, First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China. Email: bjoern.nashan@gmail.com Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Writing - original draft (lead)Search for more papers by this author Björn Nashan, Corresponding Author Björn Nashan bjoern.nashan@gmail.com orcid.org/0000-0001-7587-9935 Department of Organ Transplantation Center, First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China Correspondence Björn Nashan, Department of Organ Transplantation Center, First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui, China. Email: bjoern.nashan@gmail.com Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Writing - original draft (lead)Search for more papers by this author First published: 13 July 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.7AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abbreviations HCMV human cytomegalovirus HCMV NEJM The New England Journal of Medicine PBMC human peripheral blood mononuclear cells PCMV porcine cytomegalovirus The first gene-edited pig heart transplantation taking place in March this year in Maryland, USA, was hailed as a step into a new world [1, 2], a promise to finally serve those who are waiting for organs on the heart transplant waitlist. Much effort had been put into this endeavor in the past decades, first to deal with the issue of complement activation and hyperacute humoral rejection [3, 4], second to deal with PERV by inactivating the main enzyme reverse transcriptase, thus cells still produce virus particles which are able to infect new human cells, but they cannot integrate in the genome of the new target cell [5-7] and third to control unwanted growth of the organ after transplantation using e.g. mTOR inhibitors [8-10]. In addition, early on, the focus had been already directed on porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) as a potential contributor of harm to both patient and organ [11]. It was known, that almost 100% of the pigs were infected, it was known, that human fibroblasts could be infected [12], and it was known that humans working close to pigs (butchers, labors in the meat industry) displayed antibodies against PCMV indicating either an infection without symptoms [13] or harbor antibodies which are directed against HHV-6, and which are cross-reacting with PCMV. It was known that PCMV more resembles HHV-6/HHV-7 and not HHV-5 (human cytomegalovirus HCMV) [14] and it was known that particularly the main drug against HCMV, Ganciclovir Is ineffective against PCMV at clinical doses for humans [15] but pharmacological control of PCMV with Cidofovir or Foscarnet at the cost of significant toxicity [16] might be achieved. And it was known that PCMV in pig to baboon xenotransplantation not only leads to graft loss, but to a general infection of baboon organs eliciting via upregulation of adhesion molecules a consumptive coagulopathy [17]. In addition, it was known, that the diagnosis of PCMV in pigs is difficult, and so far, needs tissue specimens to rule out a dormant infection controlled by the immune system as we know it from Herpesvirus infected humans [18]. Hence a PCMV-free donor pig or population was deemed to be a prerequisite to provide a safe organ for transplantation. Griffith et al. [2] report in the NEJM from June 22, 2022, that “Testing for mcfDNA was positive for PCMV at low levels on day 20, and the levels increased over subsequent weeks. The detection of PCMV was unexpected, given the husbandry practices, negative surveillance PCR testing of nasal swab specimens from the donor animal before organ transplantation, and the use of antiviral prophylaxis. It is uncertain whether the detection of PCMV through plasma mcfDNA or PCR testing represents replicating virus in the xenograft, replicating virus in the recipient, or shedding of genetic material from the xenograft. The presence of PCMV in explanted xenografts from nonhuman primate recipients has been correlated with worse outcomes than an absence of PCMV, for reasons that are unclear.” Next to the PCMV findings they reported: “Further viral testing is warranted because human herpesvirus 6 (HHV-6) was also detected in a lung-lavage specimen from this patient. HHV-6 has been shown to cross-react with PCMV and has been associated with allograft rejection. No obvious viral cytopathic changes were identified on preliminary hematoxylin–eosin examination of thoracic or abdominal organs.” The findings thus far were not conclusive with typical findings of rejections and further studies are underway to identify the pathophysiologic mechanisms observed. As a clinician, I would completely agree with these findings though the hottest lead in the moment seems to be PCMV. As we know, do zoonotic viruses infect humans such as HEV [19, 20], for example, consuming undercooked meat. In general, harmless to humans, it might cause Hepatitis and there are only a few reports on severe courses of the disease, unless you are a recipient of an organ transplant under immunosuppression, under these circumstances, courses can become ugly and might end in organ failure [21]. As a matter of fact, undercooked meat or ground meat from pork is consumed, for example, in Germany, it is called “Mettbrötchen” and widely appreciated, at least in Germany. Do we need a black box warning for eating undercooked pork meat in the future for xenotransplant recipients? In the reported case [2] the donor animal had been going through husbandry practices to provide a PCMV-negative population. Nasal swabs had been negative, but after xenotransplantation and the finding of PCMV in the recipient (patient's PBMC were positive for PCMV) tissue of the donor's spleen tested positive for PCMV, indicating that the animal was likely to have a latent PCMV infection. Hence the question is open, did the virus came with the pig's heart, or came it with food? Finally, how about the butchers working in the meat industry? Did they get infected at all or where did the antibodies come from. And how about the PCMV antibodies found in the normal population? There are a couple of open questions that certainly need to be addressed before boldly moving ahead. Let us have a look at the “cost of significant toxicity” that might come with the treatment of a PCMV-infected heart xenotransplant. Ganciclovir, Cidofovir, and Foscarnet in combination with Calcineurin Inhibitors are nephrotoxic, which might cause end-stage renal disease which is a frequent complication after heart transplantation and is associated with poor survival [22]. In the reported case, renal function was normal at the time of death, but that does not exclude in general a potential risk in the future in a larger study population. In summary, we do not know the answer yet, but the question is: are we getting from bad to worse? So, the question is, are we back to square one? We have to keep in mind, that if the recipient becomes infected with PCMV the virus will meet an immunocompromised naive immune system, it will most likely infect the pig heart (endothelium and fibroblasts), it might infect other organs of the recipient as well and it might trigger a consumptive coagulopathy by upregulation of adhesion molecules on the infected endothelium, it might cause a cytokine storm leading to a SIRS (Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome) given the recipients immune systems naivety to the virus as it already happened in baboons [17]. To prevent uncontrolled growth of the pig heart, baboons had been early weaned from steroids, and temsirolimus, a prodrug of sirolimus, had been given [9]. Since mTOR inhibitors block TORC1 (Target of Rapamycin Complex 1) the intracellular target structure of HCMV for late replication [23] the antiviral effect of mTOR inhibitors (e.g., Sirolimus and Everolimus) had been widely and prospectively demonstrated in human kidney transplantation [24, 25]. Given the preclinical data in the baboon studies, PCMV most likely uses a different molecular signal than HCMV, stressing again its difference to HCMV. The solution to the current problem might be (1) PCMV-negative donor population (watch the dormant PCMV infection!), (2) development of an effective antiviral drug against PCMV, and (3) potential development of a vaccination against PCMV, something that might become arduous since we know that vaccinations under immunosuppression barely work, but it could be delivered before transplantation, because, if xenotransplantation becomes available, the surgery can be planned and so can a vaccination be given in a timely manner. In summary, xenotransplantation comes closer, a drug to treat PCMV infections will be one of the next prerequisites, though once we have it, it was only tested in animal models since the large human population does not exist for clinical trials. Hence, we are facing another problem, I am convinced we will find a solution to deal with this as well. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION Björn Nashan: Conceptualization (lead); writing—original draft (lead). ACKNOWLEDGMENT None declared. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The author declares no conflict of interest. ETHICS STATEMENT None declared. FUNDING INFORMATION None. INFORMED CONSENT None. Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Data derived from public domain resources. REFERENCES 1Accessed 8 May (2022). https://www.technologyreview.com//05/04/1051725/xenotransplant-patient-died-received-heart-infected-with-pig-virus/ 2Griffith BP, Goerlich CE, Singh AK et al. Genetically modified porcine-to-human cardiac xenotransplantation. 2022, NEJM.org. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2201422 3Cooper DK, Keogh AM, Brink J, Corris PA, Klepetko W, Pierson RN, et al. Report of the xenotransplantation advisory committee of the international society for heart and lung transplantation: the present status of xenotransplantation and its potential role in the treatment of end-stage cardiac and pulmonary diseases. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2000; 19: 1125– 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-2498(00)00224-2 4Mohiuddin MM, Singh AK, Corcoran PC, Thomas Iii ML, Clark T, Lewis BG, et al. Chimeric 2C10R4 anti-CD40 antibody therapy is critical for long-term survival of GTKO.hCD46.hTBM pig-to-primate cardiac xenograft. Nat Commun. 2016; 7:11138. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11138 5Denner J, Tönjes RR. Infection barriers to successful xenotransplantation focusing on porcine endogenous retroviruses. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2012; 25(2): 318– 43. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.05011-11 6Denner J. Porcine endogenous retroviruses and xenotransplantation, 2021. Viruses. 2021; 13:2156. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13112156 7Godehardt AW, Fischer N, Rauch P, Gulich B, Boller K, Church GM, et al. Characterization of porcine endogenous retrovirus particles released by the CRISPR/Cas9 inactivated cell line PK15 clone 15. Xenotransplantation. 2020; 27(2):e12563. 8Tanabe T, Watanabe H, Shah JA, Sahara H, Shimizu A, Nomura S, et al. Role of intrinsic (graft) versus extrinsic (host) factors in the growth of transplanted organs following allogeneic and xenogeneic transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2017; 17: 1778- 90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14210 9Längin M, Mayr T, Reichart B, Michel S, Buchholz S, Guethoff S, et al. Consistent success in life-sup-porting porcine cardiac xenotransplantation. Nature. 2018; 564: 430- 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0765-z 10Denner J. Xenotransplantation and porcine cytomegalovirus. Xenotransplantation. 2015; 22(5): 329– 35. https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12180 11Zimmerman JJ, Karriker LA, Ramirez A, Schwartz KJ, Stevenson GW. Diseases of swine. 10th ed. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012. 12Whitteker JL, Dudani AK, Tackaberry ES. Human fibroblasts are permissive for porcine cytomegalovirus in vitro. Transplantation. 2008; 86: 155– 62. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31817d4823 13Fiebig, HA, Ivanusic D, Plotzki E, Hengel H, Neipel F, et al. Antibody cross-reactivity between porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV) and human herpesvirus-6 (HHV-6). Viruses 2017, 9, 317. https://doi.org/10.3390/v9110317 14Gu W, Zeng N., Zhou L, Ge X., Guo X, Yang H. Genomic organization and molecular characterization of porcine cytomegalovirus. Virology. 2014; 460–461: 165– 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.virol.2014.05.014 15Mueller NJ, Sulling K, Gollackner B, Yamamoto S, Knosalla C, Wilkinson RA, et al. Reduced efficacy of ganciclovir against porcine and baboon cytomegalovirus in pig-to-baboon xenotransplantation. Am J Transplant. 2003; 3: 1057– 64. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-6143.2003.00192.x 16Mueller NJ, Fishman JA. Herpesvirus infections in xenotransplantation: pathogenesis and approaches. Xenotransplantation. 2004; 11: 486– 90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2004.00180.x 17Denner, Längin M, Reichart B, Krüger L, Fiebig U, Mokelke M, et al. Impact of porcine cytomegalovirus on long‑term orthotopic cardiac xenotransplant survival. Nature. 2020; 10:17531. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73150-9 18Killoran K, Leedom Larson KR. Porcine cytomegalovirus Swine Health Information Center and Center for Food Security and Public Health. 2016. https://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/pdf/shic-factsheet-porcine-cytomegalovirus 19Denner J. Xenotransplantation and hepatitis E virus. Xenotransplantation. 2015; 22(3): 167– 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12156 20Mrzljak A, Novak R, Pandak N, Tabain I, Franusic L, Barbic L, et al. Emerging and neglected zoonoses in transplant population. World J Transplant. 2020; 10(3): 47- 63. https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v10.i3.47 21Hansrivijit P, Trongtorsak A, Puthenpura MM, Boonpheng B, Thongprayoon C, Wijarnpreecha K, et al. Hepatitis E in solid organ transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2021; 27(12): 1240- 54. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v27.i12.1240 22Villar E, Boissonnat P, Sebbag L, Hendawy A, Cahen R, Trolliet P, et al. Poor prognosis of heart transplant patients with end-stage renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2007; 22: 1383– 89. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl811 23Clippinger AJ, Maguire TG, Alwine JC. The changing role of mTOR kinase in the maintenance of protein synthesis during human cytomegalovirus infection. J Virol. 2011; 85: 3930- 9. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.01913-10 24Nashan B, Gaston R, Emery V, Säemann MD, Mueller NJ, Couzi L, et al. Review of cytomegalovirus infection findings with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive therapy in de novo renal transplant recipients. Transplantation. 2012; 93: 1075– 85. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0b013e31824810e6 25Sommerer C, Suwelack B, Dragun D., Schenker P, Hauser IA, Witzke O, et al. An open-label, randomized trial indicates that everolimus with tacrolimus or cyclosporine is comparable to standard immunosuppression in de novo kidney transplant patients. Kidney Int. 2019; 96: 231– 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2019.01.041 Volume1, Issue1August 2022Pages 11-13 This article also appears in:Cutting-edge Technology in Health Care ReferencesRelatedInformation