Cytomegalovirus infection and vanishing bile duct syndrome: Culprit or innocent bystander?

T. Wright
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.1840160231
IF: 17.298
1992-08-01
Hepatology
Abstract:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection occurs in approximately 20% to 50% of liver transplant recipients, usually in the first 3 mo after surgery (1, 2). CMV is known to increase expression of class I1 human leukocyte antigens (HLAs) on bile duct epithelial cells, the putative target of cell-mediated rejection of liver allografts. At least one episode of rejection is seen in more than half of liver transplant recipients. Although most episodes resolve with immunosuppressive therapy (usually steroids or lymphocyte antibody or globulin antibody preparations), a small proportion of patients ( < 5%) progress to chronic rejection with bile duct loss, the so-called “vanishing bile duct syndrome” (VBDS). The concurrence of these two problems is the subject of a study by Arnold et al. in this issue of HEPATOLOGY (3). What determines why VBDS develops in some patients? Arnold et al. propose that it is CMV infection. Extensive research has been performed to identify the mechanism of cellular rejection in organ transplant recipients. Host T helper cells (CD4 cells) in the presence of antigen-presenting cells are necessary for immune recognition of foreign antigens (HLA class I1 in the donor) (4). By the release of cytokines, CD4 cells in turn stimulate the differentiation and proliferation of cytotoxic T cells (CD8 cells). Further activation of and immune killing by cytotoxic T cells requires the processing of donor class I HLAs by antigen-presenting cells. Biliary epithelial cells appear to be the early target for the host immune response because of the high density of class I and class I1 antigens on their surfaces. In contrast, hepatocytes largely lack these antigens and, consequently, are only involved in severe rejection. The absence of bile ducts with preservation of hepatocytes of the liver graft is the hallmark of VBDS. Although not all patients who exhibit VBDS have episodes of acute rejection before bile duct loss, it is assumed that bile duct obliteration is immune mediated. The hypothesis proposed by Arnold et al. to explain how CMV infection plays a pathogenetic role in the development of VBDS is outlined in Figure 1.This work is an extension of previous studies from the same group in which they demonstrated that VBDS is independently associated with both CMV infection and a 1-2 antigen mismatch for HLA class I1 (5). These researchers saw a 10-fold increased risk for VBDS when CMV infection and class I1 mismatch occurred together, suggesting an additive effect of these two factors. This led to the proposal that CMV infection results in increased expression of class I1 antigens on bile duct epithelial cells and that in patients with a partial donor-recipient class I1 mismatch a heightened immune response occurs in the bile ducts, with eventual immune obliteration (Fig. 1). Do the results of Arnold et al. support the proposed hypothesis? The answer is in part. The authors used in situ hybridization to study the cellular distribution of CMV DNA in liver biopsy samples of the allografts in 12 patients with VBDS, 18 patients with uncomplicated CMV infection and 10 liver transplant recipients with neither complication. Their results are summarized in Table 1. CMV DNA was detected in hepatocytes as early as 1 wk after transplant and although infection cleared rapidly in patients with uncomplicated infection, it persisted in those with VBDS. Thus chronic CMV infection may be involved in the development of VBDS. However, Arnold et al. were unable to demonstrate CMV DNA in bile duct cells. Replicating CMV was only found in hepatocytes. Does this invalidate the model? No, but it makes it less likely. To explain a role for CMV in VBDS despite the absence of CMV in bile ducts, one must postulate one of the following situations: (a) CMV was present in bile duct epithelial cells and the host immune response selectively killed these cells, thus clearing infection (referred to by the authors as “immune-mediated lysis”). This seems unlikely because almost all biopsy specimens from patients with VBDS and acute CMV had demonstrable bile duct cells (one would expect lysis of bile ducts in association with loss of CMV) and CMV DNA was not demonstrated in bile ducts of patients with acute CMV infection (one would expect that CMV in bile ducts in this group would escape immune destruction). (b) CMV infection of hepatocytes in some way up-regulated expression of HLA antigens on biliary epithelial cells (possibly by local release of cytokines); or (c) although CMV DNA was not detected in bile ducts, viral antigens were present and were bound to HLAs on the surfaces of bile duct cells, enabling immune recognition to occur. In the next step to test the hypothesis, Arnold et al. examined the expression and distribution of H I A classes I and I1 on different cell types in the liver. The hypothesis would have been supported by the finding of increased HLA expression on ductular epithelial cells in VBDS. Unlike control specimens, specimens with CMV infection itself (whether acute or in association with VBDS) were associated with class I1 antigen expression on bile ducts, but there no difference was seen between samples from patients with acute infection and VBDS and class I antigen expression was identical on hepatocytes and bile duct cells from all three groups. Does this invalidate the hypothesis? Not necessarily, because it
What problem does this paper attempt to address?