AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Attempts to use an alternative source of islets to restore glucose homeostasis in diabetic patients require preclinical islet xenotransplantation models to be tested. These models raise questions about metabolic compatibility between species and the most appropriate metabolic parameters to be used to monitor graft function. The present study investigated and compared relevant gluco-metabolic parameters in pigs, monkeys and the pig-to-monkey islet transplantation model to gain insight into the potential clinical outcome of pig-to-human islet transplantation. METHODS: Basal and IVGTT-stimulated blood glucose, C-peptide, insulin and glucagon levels were assessed in non-diabetic pigs and monkeys. The same parameters were used to evaluate the performance of porcine islet xenografts in diabetic monkeys. RESULTS: Non-diabetic cynomolgus monkeys showed lower levels of fasting and stimulated blood glucose but higher levels of C-peptide and insulin than non-diabetic pigs. The reported levels in humans lie between those of monkeys and pigs, and differences in metabolic parameters between pigs and humans appear to be smaller than those between pigs and cynomolgus monkeys. The transplantation data indicated that the degree of graft function (evaluated by the measurement of C-peptide levels) necessary to normalise blood glucose in the recipient was determined by the recipient levels rather than by the donor levels. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The differences between donor and recipient species may affect the transplantation outcome and need to be considered when assessing graft function in xenotransplantation models. Given the differences between monkeys and humans as potential recipients of pig islets, it should be easier to reach glucose homeostasis in pig-to-human than in pig-to-non-human primate islet xenotransplantation.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Attempts to use an alternative source of islets to restore glucose homeostasis in diabeticpatients require preclinical islet xenotransplantation models to be tested. These models raise questions about metabolic compatibility between species and the most appropriate metabolic parameters to be used to monitor graft function. The present study investigated and compared relevant gluco-metabolic parameters in pigs, monkeys and the pig-to-monkey islet transplantation model to gain insight into the potential clinical outcome of pig-to-human islet transplantation. METHODS: Basal and IVGTT-stimulated blood glucose, C-peptide, insulin and glucagon levels were assessed in non-diabeticpigs and monkeys. The same parameters were used to evaluate the performance of porcine islet xenografts in diabetic monkeys. RESULTS:Non-diabeticcynomolgus monkeys showed lower levels of fasting and stimulated blood glucose but higher levels of C-peptide and insulin than non-diabeticpigs. The reported levels in humans lie between those of monkeys and pigs, and differences in metabolic parameters between pigs and humans appear to be smaller than those between pigs and cynomolgus monkeys. The transplantation data indicated that the degree of graft function (evaluated by the measurement of C-peptide levels) necessary to normalise blood glucose in the recipient was determined by the recipient levels rather than by the donor levels. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: The differences between donor and recipient species may affect the transplantation outcome and need to be considered when assessing graft function in xenotransplantation models. Given the differences between monkeys and humans as potential recipients of pig islets, it should be easier to reach glucose homeostasis in pig-to-human than in pig-to-non-human primate islet xenotransplantation.
Authors: Chiara Dalla Man; Marco Campioni; Kenneth S Polonsky; Rita Basu; Robert A Rizza; Gianna Toffolo; Claudio Cobelli Journal: Diabetes Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Kenneth Cardona; Gregory S Korbutt; Zvonimir Milas; James Lyon; Jose Cano; Wanhong Jiang; Hameeda Bello-Laborn; Brad Hacquoil; Elizabeth Strobert; Shivaprakash Gangappa; Collin J Weber; Thomas C Pearson; Ray V Rajotte; Christian P Larsen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2006-02-26 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: A M James Shapiro; Camillo Ricordi; Bernhard J Hering; Hugh Auchincloss; Robert Lindblad; R Paul Robertson; Antonio Secchi; Mathias D Brendel; Thierry Berney; Daniel C Brennan; Enrico Cagliero; Rodolfo Alejandro; Edmond A Ryan; Barbara DiMercurio; Philippe Morel; Kenneth S Polonsky; Jo-Anna Reems; Reinhard G Bretzel; Federico Bertuzzi; Tatiana Froud; Raja Kandaswamy; David E R Sutherland; George Eisenbarth; Miriam Segal; Jutta Preiksaitis; Gregory S Korbutt; Franca B Barton; Lisa Viviano; Vicki Seyfert-Margolis; Jeffrey Bluestone; Jonathan R T Lakey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-09-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bernhard J Hering; Martin Wijkstrom; Melanie L Graham; Maria Hårdstedt; Tor C Aasheim; Tun Jie; Jeffrey D Ansite; Masahiko Nakano; Jane Cheng; Wei Li; Kathleen Moran; Uwe Christians; Colleen Finnegan; Charles D Mills; David E Sutherland; Pratima Bansal-Pakala; Michael P Murtaugh; Nicole Kirchhof; Henk-Jan Schuurman Journal: Nat Med Date: 2006-02-19 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Carol J Phelps; Chihiro Koike; Todd D Vaught; Jeremy Boone; Kevin D Wells; Shu-Hung Chen; Suyapa Ball; Susan M Specht; Irina A Polejaeva; Jeff A Monahan; Pete M Jobst; Sugandha B Sharma; Ashley E Lamborn; Amy S Garst; Marilyn Moore; Anthony J Demetris; William A Rudert; Rita Bottino; Suzanne Bertera; Massimo Trucco; Thomas E Starzl; Yifan Dai; David L Ayares Journal: Science Date: 2002-12-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Michael G Tal; Boaz Hirshberg; Ziv Neeman; David Bunnell; S Soleimanpour; John Bacher; Noelle Patterson; Richard Chang; David M Harlan Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephen T Bartlett; James F Markmann; Paul Johnson; Olle Korsgren; Bernhard J Hering; David Scharp; Thomas W H Kay; Jonathan Bromberg; Jon S Odorico; Gordon C Weir; Nancy Bridges; Raja Kandaswamy; Peter Stock; Peter Friend; Mitsukazu Gotoh; David K C Cooper; Chung-Gyu Park; Phillip OʼConnell; Cherie Stabler; Shinichi Matsumoto; Barbara Ludwig; Pratik Choudhary; Boris Kovatchev; Michael R Rickels; Megan Sykes; Kathryn Wood; Kristy Kraemer; Albert Hwa; Edward Stanley; Camillo Ricordi; Mark Zimmerman; Julia Greenstein; Eduard Montanya; Timo Otonkoski Journal: Transplantation Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: P Thompson; I R Badell; M Lowe; J Cano; M Song; F Leopardi; J Avila; R Ruhil; E Strobert; G Korbutt; G Rayat; R Rajotte; N Iwakoshi; C P Larsen; A D Kirk Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Kate R Mueller; A N Balamurugan; Gary W Cline; Rebecca L Pongratz; Rebecca L Hooper; Bradley P Weegman; Jennifer P Kitzmann; Michael J Taylor; Melanie L Graham; Henk-Jan Schuurman; Klearchos K Papas Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Gopalakrishnan Loganathan; Melanie L Graham; David M Radosevich; Sajjad M Soltani; Mukesh Tiwari; Takayuki Anazawa; Klearchos K Papas; David E R Sutherland; Bernhard J Hering; A N Balamurugan Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 4.939