BACKGROUND AIMS: The immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) could prove to be a potential therapeutic approach for prolongation of survival of cell xenotransplantation. Adipose (Ad) MSC from genetically modified pigs could be an abundant source of pig donor-specific MSC. METHODS: Pig (p) MSC were isolated from adipose tissue of α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene knock-out pigs transgenic for human (h) CD46 (GTKO/hCD46), a potential source of islets. After characterization with differentiation and flow cytometry (FCM), AdMSC were compared with bone marrow (BM) MSC of the same pig and human adipose-derived (hAd) MSC. The modulation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (hPBMC) responses to GTKO pig aortic endothelial cells (pAEC) by different MSC was compared by measuring 3H-thymidine uptake. The supernatants from the AdMSC cultures were used to determine the role of soluble factors. RESULTS: GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC (i) did not express galactose-α1,3-galactose (Gal) but expressed hCD46, (ii) differentiated into chondroblasts, osteocytes and adipocytes, (iii) expressed stem cell markers, (iv) expressed lower levels of Swine Leucocyte Antigen I (SLAI), Swine Leucocyte Antigen II DR (SLAIIDR) and CD80 than pAEC before and after pig interferon (IFN)-γ stimulation. The proliferative responses of hPBMC to GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC and hAdMSC stimulators were similar, and both were significantly lower than to GTKO pAEC (P < 0.05). The proliferation of hPBMC to GTKO pAEC was equally suppressed by GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC and hAdMSC (P > 0.05). The supernatant from GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC did not suppress the human xenoresponse to GTKO pAEC, which was cell-cell contact-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evidence suggests that genetically modified pAdMSC function across the xenogeneic barrier and may have a role in cellular xenotransplantation.
BACKGROUND AIMS: The immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) could prove to be a potential therapeutic approach for prolongation of survival of cell xenotransplantation. Adipose (Ad) MSC from genetically modified pigs could be an abundant source of pigdonor-specific MSC. METHODS:Pig (p) MSC were isolated from adipose tissue of α1,3-galactosyltransferase gene knock-out pigs transgenic for human (h) CD46 (GTKO/hCD46), a potential source of islets. After characterization with differentiation and flow cytometry (FCM), AdMSC were compared with bone marrow (BM) MSC of the same pig and human adipose-derived (hAd) MSC. The modulation of human peripheral blood mononuclear cell (hPBMC) responses to GTKO pig aortic endothelial cells (pAEC) by different MSC was compared by measuring 3H-thymidine uptake. The supernatants from the AdMSC cultures were used to determine the role of soluble factors. RESULTS: GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC (i) did not express galactose-α1,3-galactose (Gal) but expressed hCD46, (ii) differentiated into chondroblasts, osteocytes and adipocytes, (iii) expressed stem cell markers, (iv) expressed lower levels of Swine Leucocyte Antigen I (SLAI), Swine Leucocyte Antigen II DR (SLAIIDR) and CD80 than pAEC before and after pig interferon (IFN)-γ stimulation. The proliferative responses of hPBMC to GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC and hAdMSC stimulators were similar, and both were significantly lower than to GTKO pAEC (P < 0.05). The proliferation of hPBMC to GTKO pAEC was equally suppressed by GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC and hAdMSC (P > 0.05). The supernatant from GTKO/hCD46 pAdMSC did not suppress the human xenoresponse to GTKO pAEC, which was cell-cell contact-dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evidence suggests that genetically modified pAdMSC function across the xenogeneic barrier and may have a role in cellular xenotransplantation.
Authors: M Dominici; K Le Blanc; I Mueller; I Slaper-Cortenbach; Fc Marini; Ds Krause; Rj Deans; A Keating; Dj Prockop; Em Horwitz Journal: Cytotherapy Date: 2006 Impact factor: 5.414
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: Syed R Baber; Weiwen Deng; Ryan G Master; Bruce A Bunnell; Bradley K Taylor; Subramanyam N Murthy; Albert L Hyman; Philip J Kadowitz Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Gail E Kilroy; Sandra J Foster; Xiying Wu; Joseph Ruiz; Sonya Sherwood; Aaron Heifetz; John W Ludlow; Dawn M Stricker; Suma Potiny; Patrick Green; Yuan-Di C Halvorsen; Bentley Cheatham; Robert W Storms; Jeffrey M Gimble Journal: J Cell Physiol Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 6.384
Authors: S Itakura; S Asari; J Rawson; T Ito; I Todorov; C-P Liu; N Sasaki; F Kandeel; Y Mullen Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 8.086
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: Vikas Satyananda; Hidetaka Hara; Mohamed B Ezzelarab; Carol Phelps; David Ayares; David K C Cooper Journal: Transplantation Date: 2013-12-15 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Jiang Li; Oleg Andreyev; Man Chen; Michael Marco; Hayato Iwase; Cassandra Long; David Ayares; Zhongyang Shen; David K C Cooper; Mohamed B Ezzelarab Journal: Cell Immunol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 4.868
Authors: Jienny Lee; Jeong Su Byeon; Keum Sil Lee; Na-Yeon Gu; Gyeong Been Lee; Hee-Ryang Kim; In-Soo Cho; Sang-Ho Cha Journal: Vet Res Commun Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 2.459