Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
2008 JASN IMPACT FACTOR 7.505 HOME   AUTHOR INFO   EDITORIAL BOARD   SUBSCRIBE   FEEDBACK   ALERTS   HELP 
    advanced
CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION


Published ahead of print on August 10, 2005
J Am Soc Nephrol 16: 2529-2530, 2005
© 2005 American Society of Nephrology
doi: 10.1681/ASN.2005070735

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2005070735v1
16/9/2529    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O’Connell, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O’Connell, P. J.

Editorials

Thrombotic Microangiopathy: The Next Big Hurdle for Xenotransplantation

Philip J. O’Connell

Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, University of Sydney, Australia

Address correspondence to: Dr. Philip J. O’Connell, Centre for Transplant and Renal Research, Westmead Millennium Institute, University of Sydney, Westmead, 2185, Australia. Phone: +612-9845-6962; Fax: +612-9633-9351; philip_oconnell{at}wsahs.nsw.gov.au

Currently in the US there are 66,805 patients waiting for a renal transplant (1). This number continues to rise each year and waiting time for renal transplants has increased, due to a lack of donors. In fact, deceased donor rates have fallen 36% since 1995 and the transplant rate in patients <50 yr of age has fallen 13 to 19% over the same time period (2). Xenotransplantation has the potential to solve this problem but rejection remains a formidable obstacle. Whereas allograft rejection is a cellular response mediated by the adaptive immune system, xenograft rejection is mediated by both innate and acquired immune mechanisms (3). Xenograft rejection can be divided into three phases: hyperacute rejection, acute humoral xenograft rejection, and T cell–mediated cellular rejection. The most important features of hyperacute rejection (HAR) are the binding of preformed anti-donor antibody to pig endothelium (EC) and the activation of complement, which occurs not only because of antibody binding but because of incompatibilities between human complement factors in the blood and complement regulatory molecules (CRF) on pig endothelium (3). Hence, either the removal of preformed anti-donor antibody or the prevention of complement activation through the transgenic expression of human CRF on pig EC is sufficient to prevent HAR (47). It was this observation that led to the proposition that xenotransplantation could be developed as a clinical therapy.

Circumventing HAR merely lead us to the next hurdle: acute humoral xenograft rejection (AHXR). The key pathogenic events are thought to be endothelial activation, abnormal thromboregulation, and infiltration by host NK cells and macrophages (3). The binding of preformed host antibody with the galactose-{alpha}1,3-galactose ({alpha}Gal) carbohydrate epitope on pig cells is thought to be a major initiating event in this process. However, a proper understanding of the pathogenesis of AHXR has been difficult because of a lack of appropriate animal models and difficulty in completely absorbing anti-{alpha}Gal antibody from the host or removing the {alpha}Gal epitope from the donor pig. The article by Shimizu et al. in this issue of the JASN has clarified many of these complex issues, especially as it relates to renal xenotransplantation (8). In their study, HAR was averted by using kidney grafts from human decay accelerating factor (hDAF) transgenic pigs, and treating the donor with cobra venom factor. T cell–mediated rejection was prevented by using a combination of a pig thymus implant, donor thymectomy (the so-called thymokidney), and strong immunosuppression. In previous studies the authors showed that newly derived, donor-reactive T cells are deleted in the "thymokidney model" and rejection averted (9). Finally, attempts were made to delete anti-{alpha}Gal antibody at the time of transplant, which returned in all recipients despite prior splenectomy and the use of continuous cyclophosphamide and mycophenolate mofetil. Despite this complex and intensive conditioning regimen, the renal xenografts were rejected within one month. All grafts were lost to thrombotic microangiopathy, the pathogenesis of which is the major focus of the article by Shimizu et al. Thrombotic microangiopathy and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) have been described in previous studies. In fact, CRF-transgenic pig renal grafts succumb to DIC and microangiopathy when transplanted into nonimmunosuppressed baboons, suggesting that it is an early and major host response to vascularized xenografts (7,10). This was confirmed by the work of Shimizu et al. (8), where abnormal thromboregulation preceded any cellular response to the graft. This is in contradistinction to prior animal studies that predicted that an innate, immune-mediated accumulation of natural killer (NK) cells and macrophages would be the predominant immune response if HAR could be averted (11).

The study by Shimizu et al. identifies several predisposing factors for thrombotic microangiopathy (8). First and foremost, anti-{alpha}Gal antibody has long been suspected as a significant factor in this process, and its rapid reappearance correlated strongly with more severe renal injury. This was followed closely by an altered EC phenotype with evidence of EC apoptosis preceding EC activation. This combination of events then lead to upregulation of von Willebrand factor and expression of tissue factor, and hence the creation of a prothrombotic environment, the final consequence being intraglomerular microangiopathy. The impact of these early initiating events was quickly amplified. Intraglomerular deposition of platelet thrombi was associated with loss of hDAF and CD39 on EC cells. This was associated with renewed complement activation (as evidenced by strong C4d staining), a greater shift to a prothrombotic environment, ongoing amplification of the thrombotic microangiopathy, and loss of the graft.

How can these findings help us develop a pig kidney that can be transplanted clinically without microangiopathy and survive beyond one month? First, these data confirm what was already suspected: The {alpha}Gal epitope needs to be removed, complement activation needs to be prevented, and pig EC need to be maintained in an antithrombotic state. Already, {alpha}Gal, the major target of preformed anti-pig antibody in humans, has been deleted in pigs (12,13). As Shimizu et al. comment, the use of {alpha}Gal knockout pigs has had a significant impact on the severity of renal thrombotic microangiopathy after pig renal xenotransplantation in baboons (14).

Will the development of {alpha}Gal knockout pigs mean the end of thrombotic microangiopathy as a major problem for renal xenotransplantation? Current evidence suggests that altered thromboregulation persists despite the elimination of {alpha}Gal. When hearts from {alpha}Gal knockout pigs were transplanted into heavily immunosuppressed baboons, graft survival was prolonged but many of the hearts ultimately succumbed to thrombotic microangiopathy (15). This is not surprising as there are several molecular incompatibilities between human clotting factors and thromboregulatory molecules present on pig EC. In particular, thrombomodulin and tissue factor pathway inhibitor are incompatible with human clotting factors, and as a result pig EC is naturally prothrombotic when exposed to the human circulation (16). If we are to overcome this problem and bring renal xenotransplantation to the clinic, then we need to develop a pig whose EC lacks {alpha}Gal and expresses both human complement regulatory and thromboregulatory molecules. Such animals are already under development to test this hypothesis. Whether they will be sufficient to overcome all the major incompatibilities between humans and pig renal xenografts or merely expose new ones remains a major focus of ongoing research.

Footnotes

Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.jasn.org.

References

  1. United Network for Organ Sharing. Available online at http://www.unos.org. Accessed July 15, 2005
  2. US Renal Data System: USRDS 2004 Annual Data Report: Atlas of End-Stage Renal Disease in the United States. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, Bethesda, MD. 2004
  3. O’Connell PJ, Cunningham A, d’Apice AJF: Xenotransplantation: Its problems and potential as a clinical procedure. Transplantation Reviews 14 : 18 –40, 2000[CrossRef]
  4. Lin SS, Kooyman DL, Daniels LJ, Daggett CW, Parker W, Lawson JH, Hoopes CW, Gullotto C, Li L, Birch P, Davis RD, Diamond LE, Logan JS, Platt JL: The role of natural anti-Gal alpha1–3Gal antibodies in hyperacute rejection of pig-to-baboon cardiac xenotransplants. Transplant Immunol 5 : 212 –218, 1997[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Kozlowski T, Shimizu A, Lambrigts D, Yamada K, Fuchimoto Y, Glaser R, Monroy R, Xu Y, Awwad M, Colvin RB, Cosimi AB, Robson SC, Fishman J, Spitzer TR, Cooper DK, Sachs DH: Porcine kidney and heart transplantation in baboons undergoing a tolerance induction regimen and antibody absorption. Transplantation 67 : 18 –30, 1999[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. McCurry KR, Kooyman DL, Alvarado CG, Cotterell AH, Martin MJ, Logan JS, Platt JL: Human complement regulatory proteins protect swine-to-primate cardiac xenografts from humoral injury. Nat Med 1 : 423 –427, 1995[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Cowan PJ, Aminian A, Barlow H, Brown AA, Chen CG, Fisicaro N, Francis DM, Goodman DJ, Han W, Kurek M, Nottle MB, Pearse MJ, Salvaris E, Shinkel TA, Stainsby GV, Stewart AB, d’Apice AJ: Renal xenografts from triple-transgenic pigs are not hyperacutely rejected but cause coagulopathy in non-immunosuppressed baboons. Transplantation 69 : 2504 –2515, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Shimizu A, Yamada K, Yamamoto S, Lavelle JM, Barth RN, Robson SC, Sachs DH, Colvin RB: Thrombotic microangiopathic glomerulopathy in human decay accelerating factor–tansgenic swine-to-baboon kidney xenografts. J Am Soc Nephrol 16 : 2732 –2745, 2005[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Zhao Y, Swenson K, Sergio JJ, Arn JS, Sachs DH, Sykes M: Skin graft tolerance across a discordant xenogeneic barrier. Nat Med 2 : 1211 –1216, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Cowan PJ, Aminian A, Barlow H, Brown AA, Dwyer K, Filshie RJ, Fisicaro N, Francis DM, Gock H, Goodman DJ, Katsoulis J, Robson SC, Salvaris E, Shinkel TA, Stewart AB, d’Apice AJ: Protective effects of recombinant human antithrombin III in pig-to-primate renal xenotransplantation. Am J Transplant 2 : 520 –525, 2002[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Candinas D, Belliveau S, Koyamada N, Miyatake T, Hechenleitner P, Mark W, Bach FH, Hancock WW: T cell independence of macrophage and natural killer cell infiltration, cytokine production, and endothelial activation during delayed xenograft rejection. Transplantation 62 : 1920 –1927, 1996[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Kolber-Simonds D, Lai L, Watt SR, Denaro M, Arn S, Augenstein ML, Betthauser J, Carter DB, Greenstein JL, Hao Y, Im GS, Liu Z, Mell GD, Murphy CN, Park KW, Rieke A, Ryan DJ, Sachs DH, Forsberg EJ, Prather RS, Hawley RJ: Production of alpha-1,3-galactosyltransferase null pigs by means of nuclear transfer with fibroblasts bearing loss of heterozygosity mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101 : 7335 –7340, 2004[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Harrison S, Boquest A, Grupen C, Faast R, Guildolin A, Giannakis C, Crocker L, McIlfatrick S, Ashman R, Wengle J, Lyons I, Tolstoshev P, Cowan P, Robins A, O’Connell P, d’Apice AJ, Nottle M: An efficient method for producing alpha(1,3)-galactosyltransferase gene knockout pigs. Cloning Stem Cells 6 : 327 –331, 2004[Medline]
  14. Yamada K, Yazawa K, Shimizu A, Iwanaga T, Hisashi Y, Nuhn M, O’Malley P, Nobori S, Vagefi PA, Patience C, Fishman J, Cooper DK, Hawley RJ, Greenstein J, Schuurman HJ, Awwad M, Sykes M, Sachs DH: Marked prolongation of porcine renal xenograft survival in baboons through the use of alpha1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout donors and the cotransplantation of vascularized thymic tissue. Nat Med 11 : 32 –34, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Kuwaki K, Tseng YL, Dor FJ, Shimizu A, Houser SL, Sanderson TM, Lancos CJ, Prabharasuth DD, Cheng J, Moran K, Hisashi Y, Mueller N, Yamada K, Greenstein JL, Hawley RJ, Patience C, Awwad M, Fishman JA, Robson SC, Schuurman HJ, Sachs DH, Cooper DK: Heart transplantation in baboons using alpha1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout pigs as donors: Initial experience. Nat Med 11 : 29 –31, 2005[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Robson SC, Cooper DK, d’Apice AJ: Disordered regulation of coagulation and platelet activation in xenotransplantation. Xenotransplantation 7 : 166 –176, 2000[CrossRef][Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
ASN.2005070735v1
16/9/2529    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O’Connell, P. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O’Connell, P. J.


HOME CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVES JASN Express ONLINE SUBMISSION AUTHOR INFO
EDITORIAL BOARD SUBSCRIBE FEEDBACK ALERTS HELP