BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Current biological heart valves (BHVs) contain the major xenogeneic antigen Gal. Recipient anti-Gal antibody binding to such an implanted BHV may contribute to valve degeneration. The study aim was to compare, by implantation in non-human primates, the immune consequences of BHVs from Gal-positive wild-type (WT) pigs and those from alpha-galactosyltransferase knockout (GTKO) pigs. METHODS: Recipients were immunized prior to implant with keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) conjugated to alphaGal to match the anti-Gal levels and isotypes found in humans. Stented glutaraldehyde-fixed BHVs from WT (n = 4) and GTKO (n = 3) pigs were commercially manufactured and implanted in the mitral position in non-human primates. Recipients were treated with enoxaparin (1 mg/kg b.i.d.) for five weeks which was tapered, and then discontinued. Serum antibody levels to Gal and KLH were measured using ELISA. RESULTS: Overall anti-Gal and anti-KLH antibody levels were decreased in both WT and GTKO BHV recipients after implantation. Serum anti-Gal IgG levels in GTKO BHV recipients fell rapidly within one month, matching the loss of anti-KLH reactivity. There was no significant difference in retention of anti-KLH antibody between the groups. WT BHV recipients retained significantly elevated levels of anti-Gal IgG during the first year post implant. Area under the curve analysis showed that anti-Gal IgG was significantly increased in the WT BHV group compared to GTKO BHV recipients (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Persistent and significantly (p < 0.01) elevated levels of anti-Gal IgG were observed in WT but not GTKO BHV non-human primate recipients, and indicated a continuing BHV-specific immune stimulation to the alphaGal antigen. These data support the hypothesis that the clinical use of Gal-positive xenogeneic bioprosthetic materials can induce an anti-Gal antibody response. Bioprosthetic devices prepared from GTKO pig tissue would eliminate immune stimulation to this major xenoreactive antigen, which may reduce the potential of immune-mediated injury and degeneration.
BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Current biological heart valves (BHVs) contain the major xenogeneic antigen Gal. Recipient anti-Gal antibody binding to such an implanted BHV may contribute to valve degeneration. The study aim was to compare, by implantation in non-human primates, the immune consequences of BHVs from Gal-positive wild-type (WT) pigs and those from alpha-galactosyltransferase knockout (GTKO) pigs. METHODS: Recipients were immunized prior to implant with keyhole limpet hemocyanin (KLH) conjugated to alphaGal to match the anti-Gal levels and isotypes found in humans. Stented glutaraldehyde-fixed BHVs from WT (n = 4) and GTKO (n = 3) pigs were commercially manufactured and implanted in the mitral position in non-human primates. Recipients were treated with enoxaparin (1 mg/kg b.i.d.) for five weeks which was tapered, and then discontinued. Serum antibody levels to Gal and KLH were measured using ELISA. RESULTS: Overall anti-Gal and anti-KLH antibody levels were decreased in both WT and GTKO BHV recipients after implantation. Serum anti-Gal IgG levels in GTKO BHV recipients fell rapidly within one month, matching the loss of anti-KLH reactivity. There was no significant difference in retention of anti-KLH antibody between the groups. WT BHV recipients retained significantly elevated levels of anti-Gal IgG during the first year post implant. Area under the curve analysis showed that anti-Gal IgG was significantly increased in the WT BHV group compared to GTKO BHV recipients (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Persistent and significantly (p < 0.01) elevated levels of anti-Gal IgG were observed in WT but not GTKO BHV non-human primate recipients, and indicated a continuing BHV-specific immune stimulation to the alphaGal antigen. These data support the hypothesis that the clinical use of Gal-positive xenogeneic bioprosthetic materials can induce an anti-Gal antibody response. Bioprosthetic devices prepared from GTKO pig tissue would eliminate immune stimulation to this major xenoreactive antigen, which may reduce the potential of immune-mediated injury and degeneration.
Authors: Maelene L Wong; Janelle L Wong; Rebecca M Horn; Kimberley C Sannajust; Dawn A Rice; Leigh G Griffiths Journal: Tissue Eng Part C Methods Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 3.056
Authors: Kritika S Katiyar; Justin C Burrell; Franco A Laimo; Kevin D Browne; John R Bianchi; Anneke Walters; David L Ayares; Douglas H Smith; Zarina S Ali; Harry C Ledebur; D Kacy Cullen Journal: Tissue Eng Part A Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 4.080
Authors: Andrea Perota; Irina Lagutina; Roberto Duchi; Elisa Zanfrini; Giovanna Lazzari; Jean Paul Judor; Sophie Conchon; Jean Marie Bach; Tomaso Bottio; Gino Gerosa; Cristina Costa; Manuel Galiñanes; Jean Christian Roussel; Vered Padler-Karavani; Emanuele Cozzi; Jean Paul Soulillou; Cesare Galli Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Alexander E Kostyunin; Arseniy E Yuzhalin; Maria A Rezvova; Evgeniy A Ovcharenko; Tatiana V Glushkova; Anton G Kutikhin Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 5.501