| Literature DB >> 29403484 |
Laura A Michielsen1, Kevin Budding2, Daniël Drop2, Ed A van de Graaf3, Tineke Kardol-Hoefnagel2, Marianne C Verhaar1, Arjan D van Zuilen1, Henny G Otten2.
Abstract
Cellular protection against undesired effects of complement activation is provided by expression of membrane-bound complement regulatory proteins including CD59. This protein prevents membrane attack complex formation and is considered to be involved in graft accommodation. Also, CD59 downregulates CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell activation and proliferation. It is unknown whether CD59 expression is affected by transplantation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quantitative CD59 antigen expression on distinct leukocyte subsets following lung transplantation (n = 26) and to investigate whether this differs from pretransplantation (n = 9). The results show that CD59 expression on leukocytes is significantly lower posttransplantation compared with healthy controls (p = 0.002) and pretransplantation (p < 0.0001). Moreover, the CD59 expression diminishes posttransplantation on all distinct lymphocyte subsets (p < 0.02). This effect appeared to be specific for CD59 since the expression of other surface markers remained stable or inclined following transplantation. The highest antigen expression posttransplantation was observed on CD4+ T cells and monocytes (p ≤ 0.002). These findings show that CD59 expression on leukocytes diminishes posttransplantation, which could result in decreased resistance against complement and enhanced T-cell activation. If such reduction in CD59 expression also occurs on endothelial cells from the transplanted organ, this could lead to a change into a prothrombotic and proinflammatory phenotype.Entities:
Keywords: CD59; accommodation; complement; lung transplantation; lymphocyte biology
Year: 2018 PMID: 29403484 PMCID: PMC5786830 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2017.02008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Patient and transplant characteristics.
| Pretransplantation | Posttransplantation | |
|---|---|---|
| Total number | 10 | 26 |
| Gender, male | 4 (40%) | 11 (42%) |
| Median age (years) | 53 (45; 59) | 50 (38; 55) |
| Primary disease | ||
| COPD | 6 (60%) | 11 (42%) |
| Cystic fibrosis | 2 (20%) | 10 (38%) |
| Interstitial lung disease | 2 (20%) | 5 (19%) |
| Infection | ||
| CMV high risk | 2 (20%) | 5 (19%) |
| EBV high risk | 1 (10%) | 2 (8%) |
| Clinical complications | ||
| BOS | 3 (30%) | 13 (50%) |
| Episode of AR | 1 (10%) | 7 (27%) |
| Patient death | 4 (40%) | 10 (38%) |
| Type of transplantation | ||
| Unilateral | 5 (50%) | 6 (23%) |
| Bilateral | 5 (50%) | 20 (77%) |
| Graft ischemic time (min) | ||
| Right lung | 222 (178; 265) | 210 (180; 247) |
| Left lung | 338 (248; 395) | 331 (278; 389) |
| Gender, male | 4 (40%) | 11 (42%) |
| Median age (years) | 49 (45; 57) | 48 (39; 56) |
| Smoking, yes | 4 (40%) | 9 (35%) |
| Donor type | ||
| DBD | 8 (80%) | 22 (85%) |
| DCD | 2 (20%) | 4 (15%) |
Overview of patient and transplant characteristics. Data are presented as number (percentages) or as median (interquartile range) as appropriate. Seven patients were included both in pre- and posttransplant analyses.
AR, acute rejection; BOS, bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome; CMV, cytomegalovirus; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DBD, donation after brain death; DCD, donation after cardiac death; EBV, Epstein–Barr virus.
EBV of CMV high risk: CMV/EBV negative recipient and CMV/EBV positive donor.
Figure 1CD59 expression on leukocytes of lung transplant patients is lower compared with healthy controls (HC) and patients with end-stage lung disease. (A) Depiction of specific antibody-binding capacity (SABC) of CD59 on leukocytes measured by flow cytometry analysis and corrected for background fluorescence. Lung transplant patients show significant lower CD59 expression on leukocytes compared with healthy controls (p = 0.002) and pretransplantation (p < 0.0001). Data represent median and interquartile range; symbols indicate individual values. (B) Comparison of mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) levels of different surface expression markers on CD45+ cells shows that while CD59 expression decreases posttransplantation, other markers remain stable or tend to incline. Data are presented as box-and-whisker plots with boxes covering the interquartile range and median displayed within, and whiskers displaying minimum and maximum values. Data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney test.
Figure 2CD59 expression is not markedly affected by immunosuppressive drugs or immune activation. (A) Percentage of difference in CD59 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) on CD45+ lymphocytes for whole blood samples incubated with tacrolimus 10 ng/ml, mycophenolic acid 2.5 μg/ml, prednisolone 150 ng/ml or a combination of these drugs compared with phosphate-buffered saline. (B) Percentage of difference in CD59 MFI on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells for lymphocytes stimulated with CD3/CD28 beads compared with unstimulated lymphocytes. Data represent mean and standard error of the mean; symbols indicate individual values.
Figure 3Complement-mediated cell lysis pre- and posttransplantation. The mean percentage of cell lysis in samples with anti-HLA class I antibody and serum compared with cells that were not incubated with anti-HLA class I antibody was 37% for the pretransplant samples and 50% for the posttransplant samples (p = 0.07). Data represent mean and standard error of the mean; symbols indicate individual values. Data were analyzed with the unpaired t-test.
Figure 4CD59 expression diminishes on all subsets following transplantation. Specific antibody-binding capacity (SABC) of CD59 on CD4+ and CD8+ T cells (A), B cells (B), NK cells (C), and monocytes (D) pre- and posttransplantation was measured by flow cytometry analysis. Matched pre- and posttransplant samples are connected by a dashed line. Unpaired analyses show that the expression of CD59 is significantly lower on all subsets following transplantation (p < 0.05; shown in this figure). Data represent median and interquartile range; symbols indicate individual values. Data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney test.
Figure 5Profiling of CD59 expression on CD4+ and CD8+ T cell subsets. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells subsets were distinguished as naïve (CD45RO−CD27+), central memory (CD45RO+CD27+), effector memory (CD45RO+CD27−), and terminally differentiated T cells (CD45RO−CD27−). Posttransplantation, CD4+ central memory cells show higher expression compared with terminally differentiated (p = 0.007) and naïve subsets (p = 0.027) (A). In CD8+ T cells, central and effector memory cells show higher expression compared with terminally differentiated CD8+ T cells (p = 0.006 and p = 0.027) posttransplantation (B). Pretransplant samples and from healthy controls show similar expression patterns among subsets (not tested). Data represent median and interquartile range. Data were analyzed with Mann–Whitney test.