BACKGROUND: In many situations, anti-CD154 (CD40 ligand) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment is very potent in producing allograft tolerance. In accordance to our previously reported results, combined donor specific transfusion (DST)3 plus anti-CD154 mAb (MR1) treatment enables the permanent engraftment of DBA/2 (H-2(d)) islets into B6AF1 (H-2(b/kd)) recipients in all cases. It has been widely assumed that the MR1 anti-154 is a noncytolytic neutralizing mAb, and it exerts immune suppressive effects by blockade of CD40/CD154 signal pathway. In this study, we sought to test the role of complement dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) immune effector mechanism in MR1 anti-CD154 induced immunosuppression. METHODS: We have evaluated the contributions of CDC in the context of the potent tolerizing effects of DST plus anti-CD154 mAb treatment regiment in recipients of islet allografts. We have used CD40 knockout (KO) mice and complement C5 deficient mice DBA/2 as islet allograft recipients as well as cobra venom factor (CVF), a complement blocker, treatment. RESULTS: The absence of direct and indirect CD40/CD154 pathway signals does not prevent islet allograft acute rejection. Interestingly, MR1 anti-CD154 induces islet allograft tolerance in the absence of CD40/CD154 pathway. In a wild-type major histocompatibility complex (MHC) mismatched strain combination, DST results in accelerated islet allograft rejection. Combination of DST and MR1 anti-CD154 treatment prevents presensitization and permits permanent engraftment. However, administration of CVF abolishes the tolerance induction. Moreover, DST plus MR1 anti-CD154 regiment, a potent tolerizing therapy, does not prevent acute islet allograft rejection when complement C5 deficient DBA/2 mice are used as recipients. Thus, the mechanisms of the tolerizing effects by MR1 anti-CD154 are not limited to blockade of CD40/CD154 signals. The CDC immune effector mechanism contributes to MR1 anti-CD154 induced immunosuppression.
BACKGROUND: In many situations, anti-CD154 (CD40 ligand) monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment is very potent in producing allograft tolerance. In accordance to our previously reported results, combined donor specific transfusion (DST)3 plus anti-CD154 mAb (MR1) treatment enables the permanent engraftment of DBA/2 (H-2(d)) islets into B6AF1 (H-2(b/kd)) recipients in all cases. It has been widely assumed that the MR1 anti-154 is a noncytolytic neutralizing mAb, and it exerts immune suppressive effects by blockade of CD40/CD154 signal pathway. In this study, we sought to test the role of complement dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) immune effector mechanism in MR1 anti-CD154 induced immunosuppression. METHODS: We have evaluated the contributions of CDC in the context of the potent tolerizing effects of DST plus anti-CD154 mAb treatment regiment in recipients of islet allografts. We have used CD40 knockout (KO) mice and complement C5 deficientmiceDBA/2 as islet allograft recipients as well as cobra venom factor (CVF), a complement blocker, treatment. RESULTS: The absence of direct and indirect CD40/CD154 pathway signals does not prevent islet allograft acute rejection. Interestingly, MR1 anti-CD154 induces islet allograft tolerance in the absence of CD40/CD154 pathway. In a wild-type major histocompatibility complex (MHC) mismatched strain combination, DST results in accelerated islet allograft rejection. Combination of DST and MR1 anti-CD154 treatment prevents presensitization and permits permanent engraftment. However, administration of CVF abolishes the tolerance induction. Moreover, DST plus MR1 anti-CD154 regiment, a potent tolerizing therapy, does not prevent acute islet allograft rejection when complement C5 deficientDBA/2mice are used as recipients. Thus, the mechanisms of the tolerizing effects by MR1 anti-CD154 are not limited to blockade of CD40/CD154 signals. The CDC immune effector mechanism contributes to MR1 anti-CD154 induced immunosuppression.
Authors: C P Larsen; E T Elwood; D Z Alexander; S C Ritchie; R Hendrix; C Tucker-Burden; H R Cho; A Aruffo; D Hollenbaugh; P S Linsley; K J Winn; T C Pearson Journal: Nature Date: 1996-05-30 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: A D Kirk; D M Harlan; N N Armstrong; T A Davis; Y Dong; G S Gray; X Hong; D Thomas; J H Fechner; S J Knechtle Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1997-08-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: X X Zheng; T G Markees; W W Hancock; Y Li; D L Greiner; X C Li; J P Mordes; M H Sayegh; A A Rossini; T B Strom Journal: J Immunol Date: 1999-04-15 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: C P Larsen; D Z Alexander; D Hollenbaugh; E T Elwood; S C Ritchie; A Aruffo; R Hendrix; T C Pearson Journal: Transplantation Date: 1996-01-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: D C Parker; D L Greiner; N E Phillips; M C Appel; A W Steele; F H Durie; R J Noelle; J P Mordes; A A Rossini Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1995-10-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Kristi J Warren; Daiki Iwami; Donald G Harris; Jonathan S Bromberg; Bryna E Burrell Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Jose-Ignacio Rodriguez-Barbosa; Pascal Schneider; Luis Graca; Leo Bühler; Jose-Antonio Perez-Simon; Maria-Luisa Del Rio Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-05-09 Impact factor: 5.923