| Literature DB >> 24324977 |
Rupert Oberhuber1, Christof Mittermair, Bettina Zelger, Daniela Pirkebner, Anna Draxl, Annemarie Weissenbacher, Thomas Resch, Christian Margreiter, Robert Sucher, Raimund Margreiter, Johann Pratschke, Paul Hengster, Martin Hermann.
Abstract
Islet transplantation is a valid treatment option for patients suffering from type 1 diabetes mellitus. To assure optimal islet cell quality, specialized islet isolation facilities have been developed. Utilization of such facilities necessitates transportation of islet cells to distant institutions for transplantation. Despite its importance, a clinically feasible solution for the transport of islets has still not been established. We here compare the functionality of isolated islets from C57BL/6 mice directly after the isolation procedure as well as after two simulated transport conditions, static versus rotation. Islet cell quality was assessed using real-time live confocal microscopy. In vivo islet function after syngeneic transplantation was determined by weight and blood sugar measurements as well as by intraperitoneal glucose tolerance tests. Vascularization of islets was documented by fluorescence microscopy and immunohistochemistry. All viability parameters documented comparable cell viability in the rotary group and the group transplanted immediately after isolation. Functional parameters assessed in vivo displayed no significant difference between these two groups. Moreover, vascularization of islets was similar in both groups. In conclusion, rotary culture conditions allows the maintenance of highest islet quality for at least 15 h, which is comparable to that of freshly isolated islets.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24324977 PMCID: PMC3845626 DOI: 10.1155/2013/975608
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Islet cell viability and cell stress assessed by live confocal microscopy. (a) Cells imaged immediately after isolation and stained with WGA to assess cell morphology and with TMRM to detect cell viability. (b) Cells imaged after 15 h simulated transport under perfused rotary conditions; WGA and TMRM were used as dyes. (c) Cell morphology (WGA) and viability of islet cells after 15 h simulated transport under static conditions. (d) Islets analyzed immediately after isolation and stained with WGA for cell morphology and with Rhod-2 for the assessment of cell stress. (e), (f) Cell morphology and islet stress assessed after 15 h simulated transport under rotary versus static conditions.
Figure 2Functional assessment of islets cultured under the two different conditions following transplantation into syngeneic recipients. (a) Blood glucose levels of recipients following transplantation of 250 islets after simulated transport under rotary conditions or immediately after isolation. (b) Postoperative days to normoglycemia, showing a significant difference between islets transplanted after incubation under rotary conditions and islets transplanted immediately after isolation (P = 0.01; n = 5 per group). (c) Blood glucose levels of recipients following transplantation of 250 islets after simulated transport under rotary conditions or immediately after isolation. (d) Course of blood glucose levels after intraperitoneal injection of 2 g/kg b.w. glucose.
Figure 3Murine islets 120 days after grafting under the kidney capsule of syngeneic recipients. (a) H&E; (b) immunohistochemical detection of insulin-producing cells. (c) Immunohistochemistry with CD31 was performed to assess neoangiogenesis at the implantation site. (d) and (e) Islet capillary system shown by confocal microscopy. (f) Graft-bearing kidney.