PURPOSE: To compare the in vitro human humoral and cellular immune responses to wild-type (WT) pig corneal endothelial cells (pCECs) with those to pig aortic endothelial cells (pAECs). These responses were further compared with CECs from genetically engineered pigs (α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout [GTKO] pigs and pigs expressing a human complement-regulatory protein [CD46]) and human donors. METHODS: The expression of Galα1,3Gal (Gal), swine leukocyte antigen (SLA) class I and class II on pCECs and pAECs, with or without activation by porcine IFN-γ, was tested by flow cytometry. Pooled human serum was used to measure IgM/IgG binding to and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) to cells from WT, GTKO, and GTKO/CD46 pigs. The human CD4(+) T-cell response to cells from WT, GTKO, GTKO/CD46 pigs and human was tested by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR). RESULTS: There was a lower level of expression of the Gal antigen and of SLA class I and II on the WT pCECs than on the WT pAECs, resulting in less antibody binding and reduced human CD4(+) T-cell proliferation. However, lysis of the WT pCECs was equivalent to that of the pAECs, suggesting more susceptibility to injury. There were significantly weaker humoral and cellular responses to the pCECs from GTKO/CD46 pigs compared with the WT pCECs, although the cellular response to the GTKO/CD46 pCECs was greater than to the human CECs. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide the first report of in vitro investigations of CECs from genetically engineered pigs and suggest that pig corneas may provide an acceptable alternative to human corneas for clinical transplantation.
PURPOSE: To compare the in vitro human humoral and cellular immune responses to wild-type (WT) pig corneal endothelial cells (pCECs) with those to pig aortic endothelial cells (pAECs). These responses were further compared with CECs from genetically engineered pigs (α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene-knockout [GTKO] pigs and pigs expressing a human complement-regulatory protein [CD46]) and human donors. METHODS: The expression of Galα1,3Gal (Gal), swine leukocyte antigen (SLA) class I and class II on pCECs and pAECs, with or without activation by porcine IFN-γ, was tested by flow cytometry. Pooled human serum was used to measure IgM/IgG binding to and complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC) to cells from WT, GTKO, and GTKO/CD46pigs. The humanCD4(+) T-cell response to cells from WT, GTKO, GTKO/CD46pigs and human was tested by mixed lymphocyte reaction (MLR). RESULTS: There was a lower level of expression of the Gal antigen and of SLA class I and II on the WT pCECs than on the WT pAECs, resulting in less antibody binding and reduced humanCD4(+) T-cell proliferation. However, lysis of the WT pCECs was equivalent to that of the pAECs, suggesting more susceptibility to injury. There were significantly weaker humoral and cellular responses to the pCECs from GTKO/CD46pigs compared with the WT pCECs, although the cellular response to the GTKO/CD46 pCECs was greater than to the human CECs. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide the first report of in vitro investigations of CECs from genetically engineered pigs and suggest that pig corneas may provide an acceptable alternative to human corneas for clinical transplantation.
Authors: A H Good; D K Cooper; A J Malcolm; R M Ippolito; E Koren; F A Neethling; Y Ye; N Zuhdi; L R Lamontagne Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 1.066
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: D K Cooper; A H Good; E Koren; R Oriol; A J Malcolm; R M Ippolito; F A Neethling; Y Ye; E Romano; N Zuhdi Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 1993 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: David K C Cooper; Anthony Dorling; Richard N Pierson; Michael Rees; Jorg Seebach; Mark Yazer; Hideki Ohdan; Michel Awwad; David Ayares Journal: Transplantation Date: 2007-07-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Vladimir Lamm; Hidetaka Hara; Alex Mammen; Deepinder Dhaliwal; David K C Cooper Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2014-02-21 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Takayuki Yamamoto; Qi Li; Hidetaka Hara; Liaoran Wang; Hongmin Zhou; Juan Li; Devin E Eckhoff; A Joseph Tector; Edwin C Klein; Ray Lovingood; Mohamed Ezzelarab; David Ayares; Yi Wang; David K C Cooper; Hayato Iwase Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 2018-08-06 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: Jonah S Zitsman; Paula Alonso-Guallart; Christopher Ovanez; Yojiro Kato; Joanna F Rosen; Joshua I Weiner; Raimon Duran-Struuck Journal: Comp Med Date: 2016 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: H Iwase; B Ekser; V Satyananda; H Zhou; H Hara; P Bajona; M Wijkstrom; J K Bhama; C Long; M Veroux; Y Wang; Y Dai; C Phelps; D Ayares; M B Ezzelarab; D K C Cooper Journal: Transpl Immunol Date: 2015-02-14 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: Hayato Iwase; Hong Liu; Eva Schmelzer; Mohamed Ezzelarab; Martin Wijkstrom; Hidetaka Hara; Whayoung Lee; Jagjit Singh; Cassandra Long; Eric Lagasse; Jörg C Gerlach; David K C Cooper; Bruno Gridelli Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2017-01-28 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Whayoung Lee; Alex Mammen; Deepinder K Dhaliwal; Cassandra Long; Yuko Miyagawa; David Ayares; David K C Cooper; Hidetaka Hara Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2016-11-05 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Minoru Fujita; Ruhina Mehra; Seung Eun Lee; Danny S Roh; Cassandra Long; James L Funderburgh; David L Ayares; David K C Cooper; Hidetaka Hara Journal: Ophthalmic Res Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 2.892