Immune response after pig-to-human kidney xenotransplantation: a multimodal phenotyping study.
Journal
Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 09 2023
30 09 2023
Historique:
received:
30
05
2023
revised:
16
06
2023
accepted:
26
06
2023
medline:
2
10
2023
pubmed:
21
8
2023
entrez:
20
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cross-species immunological incompatibilities have hampered pig-to-human xenotransplantation, but porcine genome engineering recently enabled the first successful experiments. However, little is known about the immune response after the transplantation of pig kidneys to human recipients. We aimed to precisely characterise the early immune responses to the xenotransplantation using a multimodal deep phenotyping approach. We did a complete phenotyping of two pig kidney xenografts transplanted to decedent humans. We used a multimodal strategy combining morphological evaluation, immunophenotyping (IgM, IgG, C4d, CD68, CD15, NKp46, CD3, CD20, and von Willebrand factor), gene expression profiling, and whole-transcriptome digital spatial profiling and cell deconvolution. Xenografts before implantation, wild-type pig kidney autografts, as well as wild-type, non-transplanted pig kidneys with and without ischaemia-reperfusion were used as controls. The data collected from xenografts suggested early signs of antibody-mediated rejection, characterised by microvascular inflammation with immune deposits, endothelial cell activation, and positive xenoreactive crossmatches. Capillary inflammation was mainly composed of intravascular CD68 Despite favourable short-term outcomes and absence of hyperacute injuries, our findings suggest that antibody-mediated rejection in pig-to-human kidney xenografts might be occurring. Our results suggest specific therapeutic targets towards the humoral arm of rejection to improve xenotransplantation results. OrganX and MSD Avenir.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cross-species immunological incompatibilities have hampered pig-to-human xenotransplantation, but porcine genome engineering recently enabled the first successful experiments. However, little is known about the immune response after the transplantation of pig kidneys to human recipients. We aimed to precisely characterise the early immune responses to the xenotransplantation using a multimodal deep phenotyping approach.
METHODS
We did a complete phenotyping of two pig kidney xenografts transplanted to decedent humans. We used a multimodal strategy combining morphological evaluation, immunophenotyping (IgM, IgG, C4d, CD68, CD15, NKp46, CD3, CD20, and von Willebrand factor), gene expression profiling, and whole-transcriptome digital spatial profiling and cell deconvolution. Xenografts before implantation, wild-type pig kidney autografts, as well as wild-type, non-transplanted pig kidneys with and without ischaemia-reperfusion were used as controls.
FINDINGS
The data collected from xenografts suggested early signs of antibody-mediated rejection, characterised by microvascular inflammation with immune deposits, endothelial cell activation, and positive xenoreactive crossmatches. Capillary inflammation was mainly composed of intravascular CD68
INTERPRETATION
Despite favourable short-term outcomes and absence of hyperacute injuries, our findings suggest that antibody-mediated rejection in pig-to-human kidney xenografts might be occurring. Our results suggest specific therapeutic targets towards the humoral arm of rejection to improve xenotransplantation results.
FUNDING
OrganX and MSD Avenir.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37598688
pii: S0140-6736(23)01349-1
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01349-1
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1158-1169Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests AD and DA are employees of Revivicor. All other authors declare no competing interests.