Abstract:Islet transplantation has recently emerged as one of the most promising therapeutic approaches to improving glycometabolic control in diabetic patients. The Edmonton trials demonstrated a marked improvement in the short-term rate of success of islet transplantation, with an 80% rate of insulin-independence being at 1 year after transplantation, as reported by several institutions worldwide. Unfortunately, this rate consistently decreases to 10% by 5 years post-transplantation.1 Other data reported that less than half of the patients achieved insulin independence at 1 year and <15% remained insulin independent at 2 years.2 It is not clear whether this decline in insulin independence is the result of islet loss. Also unclear are the mechanisms that underlie the deterioration of graft function, though possibilities include auto or alloimmune destruction, immunosuppressant toxicity, or a progressive disruption of insulin secretion. Several questions with respect to islet transplantation remain regarding why and when insulin independence is attained, the effective volume of marginal islet mass, and the mechanism of loss of islet mass following transplantation. As such, there is an urgent need for efficient monitoring tools to label and track islets, detect graft damage, and monitor the long-term function and survival of transplanted islets. Furthermore, because complications of islet transplantation may be either immediate or delayed as a consequence of the migration of engrafted islets to the liver or as a side effect of immunosuppressive therapy, routine post-transplantation imaging is important to detect complications that are not apparent with clinical or laboratory examinations.3 Successful monitoring of the stability and function of the graft and graft-related complications will assist in the evaluation of various immunosuppressive regimens and islet delivery strategies and ultimately assist in optimizing the islet transplantation procedure. In this article, we summarize the recent advances in the monitoring of islet post-transplantation, as shown in Table 1.Table 1: Monitoring of clinical islet transplantationISLET LABELING AND TRACKING Many islet labeling techniques utilize noninvasive imagings and were developed from histopathological cell-labeling methods.4,5 The goal of these methods is to track the disposition, distribution, and survival of the islets. Because the duration of islet viability is unknown, this process is of particular clinical relevance. Contemporary research focuses on developing innovative ways to image transplanted islets. This imaging provides for the evaluation and monitoring of islet morphology, location, distribution, and function, which are essential to a precise understanding of the dynamics of transplantation and the intricate biology that determines islet graft survival.4 There are two basic methods to label an islet: direct and indirect labeling. Direct labeling introduces a marker into or onto the cells, allowing the marker to stably incorporate with or attach to the islet before the transplant or implant procedure. This mechanism is similar to that of contrast agents for magnetic resonance (MR) imaging or radionuclide labels for positron emission tomography (PET). Indirect labeling relies on the expression of imaging-reporter genes, which are transduced into the cells before transplantation and are subsequently visualized upon injection of appropriate probes or substrates for bioluminescent imaging (BLI). The BLI signal penetrates only superficially into the mammalian tissue to a maximum depth of a few centimeters; therefore, at present, this method is primarily used in animal experiments. In contrast to BLI, MRI/PET-based islet graft monitoring is feasible and safe for use in clinical practice. With the availability of commercially approved radiotracers and contrast agents for routine cell-transplant monitoring, applying this method to the clinical setting is rather straightforward.5–7 Moreover, these technologies are currently utilized in clinical trials for the visualization of transplanted islets and the monitoring of cellular therapy.5,8–10 Radionuclide labels Radiotracers have long been used to study the redistribution of a variety of cells, and the earliest direct-cell labeling techniques for clinical use were performed using radionuclide labels.5,11,12 One of the major advantages of exogenous direct-cell labeling with radiotracers over direct labeling with MRI contrast agents is the high sensitivity to a small number of cells because of the lack of a preexisting, endogenous background signal.4 Moreover, minimal detection with radiotracer labeling limits the cell number to between 6 250 and 25 000 cells, depending on the radiotracer and cell type.13,14 Post-transplantation PET/computed tomography (CT) images show fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-labeled islets that are distributed in focal areas of liver.15 The feasibility of the radionuclide labeling (18F,125I) technique for post-islet-transplantation monitoring has been proved in both mice16,17 and swine18 models in which implanted islets were detected. Two significant problems associated with this method, however, are the short half-life (110 minutes for 18F) of the radiotracer and the high outflow of tracer from the cell. These challenges considerably limit the application of this method for long-term monitoring of post-transplantation events in a clinical or research setting. However, this technique may be indicated to evaluate the fate of the islets early after transplantation. In a set of recent preclinical and clinical studies, islet damage was reported as one of the most important causes of early islet loss. In humans15 and non-human primates,18 only 50% of the administered radioactivity was observed in the liver at the end of islet infusion. However, radiotoxicity and impairment of lymphocyte function after radionuclide labeling has led to the concern that islets might also be damaged by the radiolabeling process.4 Because the GLP-1 receptor is highly expressed in human beta cells, autologous islets transplanted into the muscle may be imaged in vivo using a whole-body planar scan following intravenous administration of 96 MBq of the radioligand [Lys40(Ahx-DTPA-111In)NH2exendin-4].11 This approach, which overcomes the challenges involved with the manipulation of islets in vitro and the short half-life of available labeling agents, exhibits potential as a non-invasive method for imaging islets.11,19 Contrast agents Two types of contrast agents have been described: (a) paramagnetic agents, such as gadolinium and (b) superparamagnetic agents, such as iron oxide. Cell labeling with iron oxide particles appears to be superior to labeling with other contrast agents because the imaging artifact caused by iron oxide particles is several times larger than the labeled cell.20 Presently, iron particles are the contrast agent of choice used for MR imaging of transplanted islets. Sufficient sensitivity to iron oxide-labeled cells may be achieved with picograms of iron per cell, and following cell death, this free iron is easily recycled into the normal iron pool.21 Moreover, iron particles constitute a simple and low-cost method to label cells. Several superparamagnetic iron oxide (SPIO)-based contrast agents, such as ferumoxides or ferucarbotran, are currently approved in some countries for clinical use.7,9,20 With T2 and T2*-weighted MR imaging, SPIO-labeled islets appear as low-intensity dots in the liver because of the strong paramagnetic effects of iron. SPIO remains stable in engrafted islets and may be detected up to 6 months post-transplantation.8 Data from animal studies showed a significant correlation between the loss of signal intensity of SPIO-labeled islets and the rate of islet death; therefore, MR imaging with SPIO labeling may be helpful for monitoring islet function.6,8,9,22 However, the in vivo sensitivity remains to be determined because there has been considerable controversy about the ability to discriminate iron oxide-labeled islets from other tissue.22–24 The addition of MRI-visible contrast agents to an alginate microcapsule provides an alternative method for non-invasive imaging of individual islet. This method allows for delivery of a greater amount of contrast agent, thereby enhancing sensitivity without increasing cytotoxicity.25 Bioluminescence Bioluminescent-reporter genes are increasingly being used to image engineered cells in vivo.26,27 Frequently, the cells of interest are genetically modified to express a firefly luciferase gene. The enzymatic reaction between luciferase and its substrate, D-luciferin, generates a photon emission that can be detected by a cooled, charge-coupled device (CCD) camera and produces a pseudo-color image of light intensity overlaid onto a gray-scale image of an anesthetized animal. Many previous studies have demonstrated that isolated islets can be engineered using recombinant adenovirus or lentivirus vectors to express a bioluminescent-reporter gene.4 After implantation, the magnitude of the CCD signal was proportional to the mass of the implanted islet graft.28 Moreover, a recent publication described a more comprehensive investigation of the immune rejection of functional islet grafts. The results showed that stable luminescence signals remained for up to 18 months after transplantation of isografts; nevertheless, bioluminescent intensity progressively decreased for several days prior to the permanent recurrence of allograft rejection induced by hyperglycemia.29 Clearly, bioluminescence imaging is a useful laboratory tool for developing and evaluating new approaches to improve islet survival. However, bioluminescence imaging is only appropriate for superficially located cells, as emission does not penetrate the tissue at a greater depth than 0.5 cm, which limits its clinical use.27 ISLET GRAFT FUNCTION At present, the function of the islet graft is evaluated only by indirect methods. These methods include the measurement of serum markers and indicators of metabolic control, such as glucose, HbA1c, insulin requirement, C-peptide levels, and glucose tolerance testing. Blood glucose stability can be accurately measured using the Continuous Glucose Monitoring System, which measures capillary glucose levels continuously over a period of consecutive days.30 The mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (MAGE) can be tested repeatedly and has been broadly used to assess metabolic stability in islet transplant recipients.2,31,32 MAGE is represented by the average of 14 consecutive blood glucose values measured over 48 hours. The control population has a MAGE index of 1-3.3 mmol/L, while patients with unstable type 1 diabetes have values of up to 15 mmol/L. Measuring C-peptide levels is the simplest way to assess islet function in patients. However, C-peptide levels fluctuate widely with changes in kidney function and blood glucose. Based on the assessment of beta-cell function after islet transplantation,33 if HbA1c >7%, daily insulin requirement >0.25 units/kg and stimulated C-peptide <0.1 nmol/L, dysfunction of the islet graft is a real consideration. The glucose tolerance test and arginine stimulation test are specific stimulation tests that measure blood glucose, C-peptide, and insulin levels prior to and following drug administration respectively. These tests evaluate islet response to a glucose challenge or to direct pharmacological stimulation, which reflect either endocrine reserve or insulin resistance. Glucose disposal rate (KG) is calculated as the slope of the natural logarithm of glucose values, and KG values <-1.0 are considered to be normal.34 Areas under the curve (AUC) for insulin and C-peptide can also be calculated, and the mean AUC was (183±57) Mu*min/L in healthy volunteers.35 The beta score rates islet graft function on a 0-8 scale based on fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, daily insulin requirement, use of an oral hypoglycemic agent and stimulated C-peptide.33 Primary graft function estimates islet graft survival and metabolic control after islet transplantation with the Edmonton protocol by the beta score.36 Transplant estimated function (TEF) estimates daily insulin secretion, which is simpler than the beta score, and its performance against reference indices of beta-cell secretion is consistent with that provided by the beta score.37 The number of transplanted islets can normalize TEF; therefore, TEF can provide a benchmarking tool to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the transplant. At present, islet grafts may be classified as being fully functioning (insulin independence), partially functioning (insulin requirement and detectable C-peptide), or not functioning (no detectable C-peptide). Each of these strategies relies on the indirect measurement of metabolic parameters. None of these markers is specific for transplanted islets and may be used in any diabetic patient. Additionally, abnormalities in glucose, C-peptide, and insulin release do not become apparent until most islets have been destroyed.35 Consequently, these parameters are useful only for the diagnosis of late-stage graft rejection. IMMUNOLOGICAL MONITORING Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the insulin-secreting pancreatic beta cells are destroyed. Islet transplantation is a viable treatment option for patients who suffer from labile glycemic control and severe complications, which progress despite optimal medical treatment with exogenous insulin. Immunological challenges to islet survival, engraftment, and function post-transplantation are a result of two processes: auto-immune destruction and alloimmune rejection.38–40 Autoimmune destruction of the transplanted beta cell is mediated by beta cell-specific autoreactive T cells, whereas alloimmune rejection results when the host reacts to non-self proteins originating from the transplanted tissue (in the case of allo- and xenotransplantation). Pre-existing antibodies and primed immune cells also participate in graft destruction in addition to the immune cells that infiltrate in response to non-self antigens.41 In the case of non-self antigens, immunological similarity between the graft and the host significantly influences the magnitude of the immune attack and determines overall graft survival. Therefore, it is obvious that islet transplants should be followed for rejection as closely as other organ transplantation. Experience has identified challenges to overcome, including the need to develop better assays for monitoring T-cell reactivity, antibodies, cytokines, and cytotoxic lymphocyte gene expression. T-cell reactivity T-cell reactivity reflects, with reasonable accuracy, anti-beta cell immune responses in patients.42 Tetramer technology has revolutionized the detection of antigen-specific T cells. Tetramer technology is not yet available for the quantification of specific anti-HLA T cells but would be a helpful tool for the assessment of donor-specific cellular reactivity. HLA-peptide tetrameric complexes allows simple, direct ex-vivo visualization of antigen-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cells.43,44 Using HLA-DR tetramers that contain a peptide corresponding to the immunodominant epitope GAD65(555-567), CD4+ T cells were detected by flow cytometry in the blood of all type 1 diabetic patients. Conversely, no CD4+ T cells were detected in the control-group blood.42 Recently, HLA-A2 insulin tetramer staining assays that target CD8+ (cytotoxic) T-cells (at least 50% of Caucasians carrying the HLA-A2 allele) have proven useful to detect insulin-specific T cells. This finding is consistent with recurrent autoimmunity and subsequent graft failure in islet transplant recipients.45 Antibodies Beta-cell destruction in islet transplant recipients is primarily, if not solely, antibody related, and it is unlikely that T cell-mediated processes are directly pathogenic.46–49 Arise of autoantibody titers was observed in a minority of patients (7%) who received a vascularized pancreatic graft, and most of these patients experienced graft dysfunction.47 Autoantibodies of interest include islet-cell antibodies (ICA), anti-insulin autoantibodies (IAA), anti-glutamate decarboxylase 65 (GAD65) autoantibodies, and anti-tyrosine phosphatase (IA-2) autoantibodies. Levels of ICAs are determined by indirect immunofluorescence on frozen sections of human pancreas, whereas IAAs, GAD65, and IA-2 antibodies are measured by radioimmunoassay. In addition to these autoantibodies, circulating anti-HLA antibodies, specifically those against donor antigens, have been detected in recipients with islet graft failure.48–50 The panel-reactive antibodies (PRA), represent anti-HLA reactivity because they represent the percentage of cells from a panel of donor blood that respond to the recipient's serum, as demonstrated by a complementdependent cytotoxicity assay. Cytokines Cytokines may play either a destructive or an immunomodulating role in islet graft rejection. Many of the cytokines that contribute to graft destruction act directly or via activation of effector cells. The effector cells subsequently produce inflammatory cells that migrate to the site of the islet graft and may trigger islet loss via cell necrosis and apoptosis.51,52 The inflammatory response results in the production and release of a number of proinflammatory cytokines that act as chemoattractants and activate inflammatory cells.53–56 These cytokines include TNF-α, IL-1β, IFN-γ, and others, all of which are involved in the pathogenesis of autoimmune diabetes and are known to exert deleterious effects on islet β-cell function by inducing apoptosis and cell death. In contrast, the cytokines that may protect against graft rejection include IL-4, IL-10, and TGF-β. In particular, IL-10 and TGF-β (associated with regulatory T cells) may suppress lymphocyte proliferation in mixed lymphocyte culture and decrease the amount of alloreactive cytotoxic T-cell precursors.57,58 These results imply that immune monitoring of specific cytokines may provide surrogate markers to guide immunosuppressive therapy in islet transplantation. Cytotoxic lymphocyte gene Monitoring cellular-mediated immune reactivity by measuring granzyme B, perforin, and Fas ligand can predict functional deterioration of an islet allograft. This method was first reported in a study of non-human primates that observed sustained elevations in mRNA levels of cytotoxic lymphocyte genes 83-197 days after islet transplant, which were followed by islet graft failure.59 In the study, granzyme B was the best predictor of rejection. Studies focusing on the correlation between C-peptide production and granzyme-B mRNA levels in islet allograft recipients showed an elevation in mRNA levels of cytotoxic lymphocyte genes 25-203 days before the recurrence of hyperglycemia and insulin dependence.60,61 These markers of cytotoxic T-cell activity are likely to be elevated not only in rejection or recurrence of autoimmunity, but also in response to infectious or inflammatory processes. Thus, cytotoxic lymphocyte genes unfortunately lack specificity in transplantation monitoring.60 COMPLICATIONS OF ISLET TRANSPLANTATION Complications of islet transplantation may occur either early, after the operation, or late, as a consequence of engrafted islets migrating to the liver or as a side effect of immunosuppression therapy. In most of the institutions, abdominal ultrasound (US) with color Doppler is performed prior to the operation, early in the postoperative period, and annually thereafter. Routine, post-transplantation imaging is important for the detection of complications that are not apparent on clinical examination or with laboratory analysis.62 Early complications The most common early complication of islet transplantation is hemorrhaging.1,63 Enhanced CT and abdominal US images identified most hemorrhages in the subcapsular or parenchymal regions of the liver or in the peritoneal or pleural spaces.64 Bleeding may be diagnosed within 24 hours after islet transplantation, and hemoperitoneum may spontaneously reabsorb within a few days. In the patient with hemothorax, US images showed an inhomogeneous area in the right supraphrenic region. The risk of hemorrhage was associated with ineffective tract embolization, a platelet count less than 150 000, elevated portal pressure, a heparin dose of 45 U/kg or more, and the administration of more than 81 mg of aspirin per day prior to transplantation.65 Portal vein thrombosis was found with color Doppler US and CT within 24 hours following the procedure. Thrombosis is the second most common complication of islet transplantation and occurs in approximately 3% of cases.63 Thrombosis is thought to be related to the volume of packed cells and the purity and thrombogenicity of the islet preparation. Greater packed-cell volumes and impure preparations are associated with an increased risk of thrombosis.64,66 Other complications include arteriovenous fistula (with angiogram); trauma to adjacent structures, such as the gallbladder and biliary tree (with MRI and US); and trauma to the pleura, which may result in pneumothorax or hemothorax.63 Late complications Infusion of islets into the portal venous system may induce hepatic steatosis.67 The hepatic steatosis may be identified by MR imaging and US as early as 6-12 months after islet transplantation in approximately 20% of the patients.68,69 Periportal hepatic steatosis is thought to result from the paracrine action of insulin secreted by the engrafted islets. Ovarian cysts have been found in approximately 70% of premenopausal women who have undergone sirolimus treatment after islet transplantation. This incidence rate is substantially higher than that seen in the general population or in those who have had kidney transplantation.70–73 The cysts observed in women who have taken long-term immunosuppressive therapy have a median size of 6.0 cm, though a number of cysts measure more than 10 cm.69 Sirolimus is thought to cause ovarian cysts because women who did not receive the drug did not develop cysts, and the discontinuation of sirolimus therapy was associated with a reduction in the cyst size.69,74 Immunosuppressive therapy (particularly sirolimus) is associated with an increased risk for adverse effects in islet recipients. An experienced group reported that perinephric edema was identified by MR imaging in 10 patients out of a total of 30 who underwent islet transplantation and initially showed preservation in their renal function.75 Perinephric edema is associated with a mild degree of renal impairment and is probably an adverse effect of sirolimus therapy. MR imaging is a more sensitive method than US to identify perinephric edema and shows bilateral areas of high signal intensity in the perinephric spaces. Other adverse effects76 include painful mouth ulceration, proteinuria (sirolimus exerts an anti-proliferative effect on renal tubular cells and may hinder recovery of an injured kidney), hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS The development of efficient monitoring tools for clinical islet transplantation is a rapidly developing field. A variety of potential methods and techniques will probably provide insight into many of the intricate biological aspects of islet graft exhaustion and its kinetics. The potential benefits that these studies bring to patients are obvious and are based on the collection of detailed spatial and temporal information regarding the stability and functionality of the graft, as well as various complications. Ultimately, these monitoring tools would assist in optimizing further the islet transplantation procedure and the administration of immunosuppressive regimens.

Monitoring of Clinical Islet Transplantation.

Islet Transplantation Imaging In Vivo

Molecular Imaging of Islet Transplantation:Tracking and Monitoring

Detection of viability of transplanted beta cells labeled with a novel contrast agent - polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles by magnetic resonance imaging.

Monitoring of Allogeneic Islet Grafts in Nonhuman Primates Using MRI.

Tracking transplanted pancreatic islet cells in rats using magnetic resonance imaging

Longitudinal multimodal monitoring of transplanted islet β-cells

Assessment of Islet Graft Survival Using a 3.0‐tesla Magnetic Resonance Scanner

Magnetic resonance imaging of pancreatic islets using tissue-adhesive particles containing iron oxide nanoparticles

Dmso_a_263253 3301..3311

Noninvasive quantitative evaluation of viable islet grafts using 111 In-exendin-4 SPECT/CT

MRI monitoring of transplanted neonatal porcine islets labeled with polyvinylpyrrolidone-coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in a mouse model

Monitoring neovascularization of intraportal islet grafts by dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

3D in vivo Magnetic Particle Imaging of Human Stem Cell-Derived Islet Organoid Transplantation Using a Machine Learning Algorithm

Optimization of MRI scan sequence for tracking superparamagnetic iron oxide-labeled pancreatic islet ceils in vivo

Characterization of biophysical properties of insulin-producing cells labeled with SPIO-PLL in vitro

MRI Tracking of Autologous Pancreatic Progenitor-Derived Insulin-Producing Cells in Monkeys

Labeling transplanted mice islet with polyvinylpyrrolidone coated superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles for in vivo detection by magnetic resonance imaging.

Magnetic particle labeling of bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells and magnetic resonance imaging after autologous transplantation

In Vitro and in Vivo MR Imaging of Rat Pancreatic Islet Cells