Premium
Anti‐Gal antibody‐mediated skin graft rejection requires a threshold level of Gal expression
Author(s) -
MurraySegal Lisa,
Gock Hilton,
Cowan Peter J.,
D’Apice Anthony J.F.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
xenotransplantation
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.052
H-Index - 61
eISSN - 1399-3089
pISSN - 0908-665X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1399-3089.2007.00437.x
Subject(s) - antibody , xenotransplantation , monoclonal antibody , immunology , transplantation , immune system , immunohistochemistry , galactosyltransferase , flow cytometry , microbiology and biotechnology , biology , medicine , biochemistry , enzyme
Background: Despite overcoming xenograft hyperacute rejection (HAR), Gal (galactose‐α1,3‐galactose) expression may not be completely eliminated from the α1,3‐galactosyltransferase gene knockout (Gal KO) pig because of alternative galactosyltransferases. Whether low levels of “residual” Gal are still susceptible to either complement fixing or non‐complement fixing antibody beyond the HAR barrier remains unknown. Furthermore, it would be impossible to analyze the immune response specific to low‐level Gal in a xenograft setting given the multitude of xenoantigens that could induce a recipient response. To investigate this question, we therefore used a skin graft model in BALB/c mice where the sole difference between donor and recipient was the expression of Gal, where rejection is caused by passively administered anti‐Gal monoclonal antibody and where HAR does not occur. Methods: Gal expression over time was examined by immunohistochemistry in wildtype‐to‐Gal KO skin grafts. Graft rejection in response to passively administered anti‐Gal monoclonal antibody at early and late time points was studied to determine changes in susceptibility to antibody. To independently test the effect of reduced Gal expression on antibody‐mediated rejection, we used two separate lines of α1,2‐fucosyltransferase transgenic mice as skin donors in the model. These mice have known reduced but different levels of Gal as determined by flow cytometry on peripheral blood leukocytes. Results: Gal expression on skin grafts diminished with time with a corresponding reduction in susceptibility to antibody‐mediated rejection. Skin grafts at day 30 (n = 7) and 150 (n = 11) had a rejection rate of 100% and 45% respectively in response to non‐complement fixing anti‐Gal antibody administered to the recipient. Similar results were demonstrated with a complement fixing anti‐Gal antibody. When α1,2‐fucosyltransferase transgenic mice skin was used in the model, the line with lowest level of Gal expression was resistant to antibody‐induced rejection with a rate 0% (n = 9) vs. 60% (n = 5) in the alternative line with relatively more Gal expressed but still much less than normal mice. Conclusions: Resistance to anti‐Gal antibody‐mediated damage in the model was observed in skin grafts 100 to 150 days post‐grafting but not earlier and was associated with a reduction in Gal expression. It is possible that below a threshold level of Gal expression, the grafts were not susceptible to anti‐Gal antibody.