BACKGROUND: Experience with non-antigenic galactose alpha1,3 galactose (alphaGal) polymers and development of alphaGal deficient pigs has reduced or eliminated the significance of this antigen in xenograft rejection. Despite these advances, delayed xenograft rejection (DXR) continues to occur most likely due to antibody responses to non-Gal endothelial cell (EC) antigens. METHODS: To gauge the diversity of the non-Gal antibody response we used antibody derived from CD46 transgenic heterotopic cardiac xenografts performed without T-cell immunosuppression, Group A (n = 4) and Gal knockout (GT-KO) heart transplants under tacrolimus and sirolimus immunosuppression, Group B (n = 8). Non-Gal antibody was measured by flow cytometry and by western blots using GT-KO EC membrane antigens. A nanoLC/MS/MS analysis of proteins recovered from 2D gels was used to identify target antigens. RESULTS: Group A recipients exhibited a mixed cellular and humoral rejection. Group B recipients mainly exhibited classical DXR. Western blot analysis showed a non-Gal antibody response induced by GT+ and GT-KO hearts to an overlapping set of pig aortic EC membrane antigens. Proteomic analysis identified 14 potential target antigens but failed to define several immunodominant targets. CONCLUSIONS: These experiments indicate that the non-Gal antibody response is directed to a number of stress response and inflammation related pig EC antigens and a few undefined targets. Further analysis of these antibody specificities using alternative methods is required to more fully define the repertoire of non-Gal antibody responses.
BACKGROUND: Experience with non-antigenic galactosealpha1,3 galactose (alphaGal) polymers and development of alphaGal deficient pigs has reduced or eliminated the significance of this antigen in xenograft rejection. Despite these advances, delayed xenograft rejection (DXR) continues to occur most likely due to antibody responses to non-Gal endothelial cell (EC) antigens. METHODS: To gauge the diversity of the non-Gal antibody response we used antibody derived from CD46 transgenic heterotopic cardiac xenografts performed without T-cell immunosuppression, Group A (n = 4) and Gal knockout (GT-KO) heart transplants under tacrolimus and sirolimus immunosuppression, Group B (n = 8). Non-Gal antibody was measured by flow cytometry and by western blots using GT-KO EC membrane antigens. A nanoLC/MS/MS analysis of proteins recovered from 2D gels was used to identify target antigens. RESULTS: Group A recipients exhibited a mixed cellular and humoral rejection. Group B recipients mainly exhibited classical DXR. Western blot analysis showed a non-Gal antibody response induced by GT+ and GT-KO hearts to an overlapping set of pig aortic EC membrane antigens. Proteomic analysis identified 14 potential target antigens but failed to define several immunodominant targets. CONCLUSIONS: These experiments indicate that the non-Gal antibody response is directed to a number of stress response and inflammation related pig EC antigens and a few undefined targets. Further analysis of these antibody specificities using alternative methods is required to more fully define the repertoire of non-Gal antibody responses.
Authors: J R Leventhal; P Sakiyalak; J Witson; P Simone; A J Matas; R M Bolman; A P Dalmasso Journal: Transplantation Date: 1994-03-27 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: C W Kopp; J B Siegel; W W Hancock; J Anrather; H Winkler; C L Geczy; E Kaczmarek; F H Bach; S C Robson Journal: Transplantation Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Svetlana Borozdenkova; Jules A Westbrook; Vaksha Patel; Robin Wait; Islam Bolad; Margaret M Burke; Alexander D Bell; Nicholas R Banner; Michael J Dunn; Marlene L Rose Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Jose L Estrada; Greg Martens; Ping Li; Andrew Adams; Kenneth A Newell; Mandy L Ford; James R Butler; Richard Sidner; Matt Tector; Joseph Tector Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Bao-Ngoc H Nguyen; Agnes M Azimzadeh; Carsten Schroeder; Thomas Buddensick; Tianshu Zhang; Amal Laaris; Megan Cochrane; Henk-Jan Schuurman; David H Sachs; James S Allan; Richard N Pierson Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2011 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Kim M Wigglesworth; Waldemar J Racki; Rabinarayan Mishra; Eva Szomolanyi-Tsuda; Dale L Greiner; Uri Galili Journal: J Immunol Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Laura Higginbotham; Dave Mathews; Cynthia A Breeden; Mingqing Song; Alton Brad Farris; Christian P Larsen; Mandy L Ford; Andrew J Lutz; Matthew Tector; Kenneth A Newell; A Joseph Tector; Andrew B Adams Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Fan Liang; Isaac Wamala; Joseph Scalea; Aseda Tena; Taylor Cormack; Shannon Pratts; Raimon Duran-Struuck; Nahel Elias; Martin Hertl; Christene A Huang; David H Sachs Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: John M Stewart; Alice F Tarantal; Wayne J Hawthorne; Evelyn J Salvaris; Philip J O'Connell; Mark B Nottle; Anthony J F d'Apice; Peter J Cowan; Mary Kearns-Jonker Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Burcin Ekser; Christopher Burlak; Joshua P Waldman; Andrew J Lutz; Leela L Paris; Massimiliano Veroux; Simon C Robson; Michael A Rees; David Ayares; Bruno Gridelli; A Joseph Tector; David Kc Cooper Journal: Expert Rev Clin Immunol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 4.473