Comment on ‘‘reversal of diabetes in non‐immunosuppressed rhesus macaques by intraportal porcine islet xenografts precedes acute cellular rejection’’
D. Gray
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3089.2004.00156.x
2004-09-01
Xenotransplantation
Abstract:As our knowledge of the complexity of the immune response increases, there has been a realization that the barriers that face xenotransplantation are caused by inter-species differences in virtually every protein of every molecular system. These differences vary in detail for each donor–recipient species combination, a fact that has become clear as the initial immune response to vascularized xenografts has been dissected in studies over the last 10 yr. What was globally termed ’’hyperacute rejection’’ has been shown to be a variable phenomenon, reflecting incompatibilities in the complex cascade and counter-regulatory mechanisms of the antibody, complement, clotting, and cellular immune systems. Seen from this point of view, it is all the more remarkable that comparatively simple manipulation of the immune system, such as transgenic expression of one or more human complement-regulatory proteins, has had such a marked effect in terms of preventing the rapid graft loss that otherwise affects vascularized grafts. For some years, the dogma was that isolated xenogeneic islets were not subject to the phenomenon of hyperacute rejection, the evidence for this idea coming from experiments in which murine species acted as recipients. Islet xenografts from many donor species into murine recipients could be demonstrated to largely survive the initial implantation process; the subsequent cellular-based rejection could be lessened or even prevented by maneuvers targeting CD4 T cells [1]. It is often said that the immune system of mice should not be assumed to be a smaller version of the human immune system, and nowhere has this aphorism been more true than in the early events following xenotransplantation of islets. Although early studies of islet xenografts into primate recipients did not report rapid graft loss, the results were generally poor (with one notable exception using an encapsulation technique, which has not so far been repeated [2]), and the timing and cause of graft loss was unclear [3]. The first clear-cut report of early destruction of islets occurring after fresh islet xenotransplantation was of rabbit islets transplanted to the kidney capsule of cynomolgus monkeys [4]. Rapid destruction, characterized by necrosis and heavy neutrophil infiltration, was found to occur within 6 h of transplantation. Perhaps because of the unusual species combination and the uncommon site of transplantation, it took some time for this early destructive process to be accepted as a repeatable phenomenon. However, a similar destructive process has since been described in primate recipients of islets from other species, including the mouse [5], and, most convincingly, in the clinically relevant pig-to-primate species combination, the islets being injected intraportally [6]. What this process should be called remains a matter of debate. Naming it ’’hyperacute rejection’’ has not found favor, as the long-standing association of the term with circulating antibody, complement activation, and circulatory clotting in vascularized grafts does not transfer easily to grafts that have no blood flow. Nevertheless, ’’hyperacute rejection’’ of the vascularized xenograft has now been shown to have such a heterogenous pathophysiology that the inclusion of a further variant, termed ’’non-vascularized hyperacute rejection’’, seems reasonable, at least to this author. As to the etiology, apart from the knowledge that complement activation is involved, the exact mechanism is obscure, progress being severely hampered by the lack of an adequate in vitro or small animal equivalent model. The picture has been further complicated by the demonstration that both allogeneic and xenogeneic islets induce a rapid clotting process on contact with primate and human blood; this produces rapid damage to the islets, with a histological appearance which appears remarkably similar to that described above for xenografted islets [7,8]. This process has been termed the ’’instant bloodmediated inflammatory reaction’’ (IBMIR) [7]. Because this phenomenon can be studied in vitro, considerable progress has been made towards elucidating its etiology [9] and approaches by which it may be halted [10], although information in an important ’’control’’, namely the ability of autogenous fresh primate blood to damage islets is still lacking. The relationship of IBMIR to nonvascularized hyperacute rejection of islet xenoXenotransplantation 2004: 11: 394–395 Printed in the UK. All rights reserved doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2004.00156.x Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard 2004