Anti-pig IgE and IgA Antibodies in Naive Primates and Nonhuman Primates With Pig Xenografts

What Have We Learned From In Vitro Studies About Pig-to-primate Organ Transplantation?

Natural preformed and de novo antibodies against pig antigens are a major cause of pig xenograft rejection in nonhuman primates (NHPs). In vivo studies in pig-to-NHP models are time consuming. In vitro assays, for example, antibody binding to pig cells, complement-dependent cytotoxicity assays, provide valuable information quickly and inexpensively. Using in vitro assays for several years, it has been documented that (1) during the first year of life, humans and NHPs develop anti-wild-type pig antibodies, but humans develop no or minimal antibody to triple-knockout (TKO) pig cells. (2) Some adult humans have no or minimal antibodies to TKO pig cells and are therefore unlikely to rapidly reject a TKO organ, particularly if the organ also expresses human "protective" proteins. (3) There is good correlation between immunoglobulin (Ig)M (but no t IgG) binding and complement injury. (4) All Old World NHPs develop antibodies to TKO pig cells and are not optimal recipients of TKO organs. (5) galactosyltransferase gene-knockout/β4GalNT2KO pigs are preferred for Old World NHPs. (6) Humans develop anti-pig IgE and IgA antibodies against pig cells, but their role remains uncertain. (7) In a small percentage of allosensitized humans, antibodies that cross-react with swine leukocyte antigens may be detrimental to a pig organ xenograft. (8) Prior sensitization to pig antigens is unlikely to be detrimental to a subsequent allograft. (9) Deletion of expression of Gal and Neu5Gc is associated with a reduction in the T-cell response to pig cells. All of these valuable observations have largely predicted the results of in vivo studies.

Genetic engineering of pigs for xenotransplantation to overcome immune rejection and physiological incompatibilities: The first clinical steps

Xenotransplantation has the potential to solve the shortfall of human organ donors. Genetically modified pigs have been considered as potential animal donors for human xenotransplantation and have been widely used in preclinical research. The genetic modifications aim to prevent the major species-specific barriers, which include humoral and cellular immune responses, and physiological incompatibilities such as complement and coagulation dysfunctions. Genetically modified pigs can be created by deleting several pig genes related to the synthesis of various pig specific antigens or by inserting human complement- and coagulation-regulatory transgenes. Finally, in order to reduce the risk of infection, genes related to porcine endogenous retroviruses can be knocked down. In this review, we focus on genetically modified pigs and comprehensively summarize the immunological mechanism of xenograft rejection and recent progress in preclinical and clinical studies. Overall, both genetically engineered pig-based xenografts and technological breakthroughs in the biomedical field provide a promising foundation for pig-to-human xenotransplantation in the future.

Innate Immune Response Analysis in Meniscus Xenotransplantation Using Normal and Triple Knockout Jeju Native Pigs

Although allogenic meniscus grafting can be immunologically safe, it causes immune rejection due to an imbalanced tissue supply between donor and recipient. Pigs are anatomically and physiologically similar to adult humans and are, therefore, considered to be advantageous xenotransplantation models. However, immune rejection caused by genetic difference damages the donor tissue and can sometimes cause sudden death. Immune rejection is caused by genes; porcine GGTA1, CMAH, and B4GLANT2 are the most common. In this study, we evaluated immune cells infiltrating the pig meniscus transplanted subcutaneously into BALB/c mice bred for three weeks. We compared the biocompatibility of normal Jeju native black pig (JNP) meniscus with that of triple knockout (TKO) JNP meniscus (α-gal epitope, N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), and Sd (a) epitope knockout using CRISPR-Cas 9). Mast cells, eosinophils, neutrophils, and macrophages were found to have infiltrated the transplant boundary in the sham (without transplantation), normal (normal JNP), and test (TKO JNP) samples after immunohistochemical analysis. When compared to normal and sham groups, TKO was lower. Cytokine levels did not differ significantly between normal and test groups. Because chronic rejection can occur after meniscus transplantation associated with immune cell infiltration, we propose studies with multiple genetic editing to prevent immune rejection.

Evidence that sensitization to triple-knockout pig cells will not be detrimental to subsequent allotransplantation

The current evidence is that sensitization to a pig xenograft does not result in the development of antibodies that cross-react with alloantigens, and therefore, sensitization to a pig xenograft would not be detrimental to the outcome of a subsequent allograft. This evidence relates almost entirely to the transplantation of cells or organs from wild-type or α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout (GTKO) pigs. However, it is not known whether recipients of triple-knockout (TKO) pig grafts who become sensitized to TKO pig antigens develop antibodies that cross-react with alloantigens and thus be detrimental to a subsequent organ allotransplant. We identified a single baboon (B1317) in which no (or minimal) serum anti-TKO pig antibodies could be measured-in our experience unique among baboons. We sensitized it by repeated subcutaneous injections of TKO pig peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) in the absence of any immunosuppressive therapy. After TKO pig PBMC injection, there was a transient increase in anti-TKO pig IgM, followed by a sustained increase in IgG binding to TKO cells. In contrast, there was no serum IgM or IgG binding to PBMCs from any of a panel of baboon PBMCs (n = 8). We conclude that sensitization to TKO pig PBMCs in the baboon did not result in the development of antibodies that also bound to baboon cells, suggesting that there would be no detrimental effect of sensitization on a subsequent organ allotransplant.