Ex vivo perfusion-based engraftment of genetically engineered cell sensors into transplantable organs.

Cellular rejection of liver transplant allografts remains a concern despite immunosuppressant use. Existing transplant biomarkers are often not sensitive enough to detect acute or chronic rejection at an early enough stage to allow successful clinical intervention. We herein developed a cell-based sensor that can potentially be used for monitoring local events following liver transplantation. Utilizing a machine perfusion system as a platform to engraft the cells into a donor liver, we effectively established the biocompatibility of the biosensor cells and confirmed efficient delivery of cells distributed throughout the organ. This work proves an innovative concept of integrating synthetic reporter cells ex vivo into organs as a transplant-within-a-transplant during functional organ preservation with a vision to use cell biosensors as a broad way to monitor and treat tissue transplants.

Introduction

Liver transplantation remains the definitive surgical cure for end-stage liver disease. The last several decades have seen significant advances in the safety of transplant surgery and outcomes of recipients. Advances in immunosuppression, including the introduction of calcineurin inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors, have improved rejection rates [1]. Detection of graft rejection, however, has lagged behind these developments. Diagnosis of post-transplant liver dysfunction, including ischemia-reperfusion injury, acute and chronic rejection, and even steatohepatitis, often requires core liver biopsies (percutaneous or endovascular), often in serial fashion. which is not without risk especially in patients with liver failure. Current serum biomarkers of graft dysfunction are also largely limited to nonspecific liver function tests. Therefore, there remains a barrier to the management of liver transplant patients at the point-of-care. Furthermore, the need for continued monitoring after diagnosis of graft dysfunction is critical given the scarcity of an organ transplants and the costs of organ failure.

Cell therapy to modulate organ dysfunction after transplantation is being increasingly explored for treatment of ischemic-reperfusion injury, prevention of chronic allograft dysfunction, minimization of immune suppression, and induction of long-term allograft tolerance. Many cell types have been investigated as potential cell-based immunotherapies for use in solid-organ transplant, including mesenchymal stromal cells, regulatory macrophages, tolerogenic dendritic cells, regulatory T cells, and regulatory B cells [2-11]. Moreover, the use of concomitant kidney and bone marrow transplants to induce mixed chimerism and tolerance [12, 13] has been explored with initial success. These cell therapies are often administered intravenously with limited half-life in the body [14, 15] and non-specific targeting to an organ bed where modulation or tolerance is needed. Thus, a significant barrier to the use of cell therapeutics to modulate organ recovery after transplant may be an inefficient delivery to sites of pathology.

To overcome the limited half-life in vivo and non-specific delivery of cell therapies for transplant modulation applications, we engineered cells to be directly engrafted into an organ prior to transplantation with machine perfusion. A rat fibroblast line was initially chosen for this study. The rationale for selection included the availability and ease of transduction, ability to engraft, and potential use in eventually modulating tissue dysfunction [16]. We did not use mesenchymal stem cells, despite the potential for eventual clinical use, to avoid potential therapeutic effects they may have which would be confounding factors in assessment of the liver function/viability. The scope of this initial work was therefore to establish the integrity of biosensor cells infused into an organ using a constitutive CMV promoter to drive the secretion of Gaussia luciferase (gLuc), a bioluminescent biomarker probe [17]. We have previously investigated the pharmacokinetics of a cell therapy coupled with gLuc monitoring of cellular transplant [18] and used this technique to confirm immune clearance of such biomarker-secreting cells [19]. Furthermore, we tested the ability of a previously established ex vivo liver perfusion system [20] as a novel and enabling platform for engrafting cell biosensors into the organs prior to transplant. Herein, we describe the process development to verify the successful engraftment of biosensor cells in donor livers, with a robust blood-based biomarker signal and minimal impact on the organ.

Methods

Rat fibroblast culture and expansion

Frozen vials of Rat2 fibroblast cell line were purchased from American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA, USA). Cells were thawed and cultured in Dulbecco Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) composed of 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 2% penicillin and streptomycin. Media was changed every 3–4 days and incubated at 37°C, 5% carbon dioxide. Cells were subcultured when they reached 80–90% confluence.

Genetic engineering of rat fibroblasts

Rat fibroblasts were harvested at passage 2 for lentiviral infection. A lentivirus vector expressing gLuc [17, 21] and green fluorescent protein (GFP) under the control of the CMV promoter was obtained from the Massachusetts General Hospital Vector Core (funded by NIH/NINDS P30NS045776). Cells were cultured for 24h in DMEM with increasing concentrations of lentiviral particles per cell and protamine sulfate, a cationic vehicle [22]. Transduced GFP-positive cells were sorted using a BD FACS Aria III (BD Biosciences) cell sorter (Harvard Stem Cell Institute Flow Cytometry Core at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA). GFP-positive cells were then cultured, expanded and used for subsequent studies. Only passages 3–5 rat fibroblasts were used for experiments.

Animals

Male Lewis rats weighing 200g-250g were housed in standard conditions (Charles River Laboratories, Boston, MA, USA). The animals were kept in accordance with the National Research Council guidelines. The experimental protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital.

Liver procurement

All procurements were performed using the technique of Delriviere et al [23]. Animals were anesthetized using inhalation of 3–5% isoflurane (Forane, Deerfield, IL, USA) with 1 L/min 95%/5% oxygen-carbon dioxide gas. The animal’s abdomen was shaved and a transverse laparotomy was made. Intestines were moved to expose the entirety of the liver, portal vein, common bile duct, and inferior vena cava. The common bile duct was cannulated using a ~6cm 28-gauge polyethylene tube (Surflo, Terumo, Somerset, NJ, USA) to collect bile throughout the perfusion. Via the infrahepatic vena cava (IHVC), 300U of heparin was administered and 3 minutes were allowed for circulation. The portal vein was cannulated using a 16-gauge catheter and IHVC was transected for exsanguination. All cannulas were secured with 7–0 silk suture. The liver was immediately flushed in situ via the portal vein cannula with 50mL of 0.9% NaCl at 4°C. The liver was freed from its ligamentous attachments, weighed, and placed in ice-cold saline prior to being connected to the perfusion circuit.

Perfusate composition

Perfusate composition consisted of a base of DMEM supplemented with 200mM L-glutamine (Invitrogen), 10% v/v FBS (Thermo Scientific), 5% with bovine serum albumin (BSA; Sigma-Aldrich), 8mg/L dexamethasone (Sigma-Aldrich), 2000 U/L heparin (APP Pharmaceuticals), and 2 U/L insulin (Humulin, Eli Lily).

A determined concentration of 5 x 106 engineered rat fibroblasts was added to 150mL of perfusate to circulate through the system for the initial three hours. At hour three, the perfusate was switched to media without any rat fibroblasts and perfused for an additional three hours.

Normothermic machine perfusion

Normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) was chosen to maintain the liver at a metabolically active state, similar to in vivo conditions [24, 25]. The NMP circuit used was comprised of an organ reservoir, bubble trap, membrane oxygenator, roller pump, water bath, and series of silicon tubing. Prior to liver procurement, the perfusion system was first flushed with ultrapure water and warmed to 37C before perfusate was circulated.

Immediately after procurement, the liver was transferred to the organ reservoir and perfused through the portal vein cannula. The liver was perfused with partial oxygen pressure (pO2) above 400mmHg. The flow rate of the system was manually altered according to target a portal pressure of 5 mmHg, measured using a water column manometer. Flow rates initiated at 5mL/min and were increased to maintain an absolute pressure of 5 mmHg inside the liver.

Perfusate analysis

Samples of perfusate were taken at time points 0, 30, 60, 120, 180, 210, 240, 300, and 360 minutes and stored at -80ºC. Serum chemistry and blood gas analyses were performed during perfusion using CG4+ and CHEM8+ i-STAT cartridges (Abbott Point of Care Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA). Liver biopsies were taken post-perfusion and either snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen or fixed in 10% formalin. Assays for aspartate aminotransferase (AST; TR70121, Thermo Scientific) were performed following perfusion according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Bioluminescence assays

Bioluminescence assays were performed by pipetting 10 μL of sample into a black-walled 96-well plate (Corning) and adding 1000 μL of coelenterazine native substrate (NanoLight Technology) at 100 μmol/L diluted in phosphate buffered saline. Samples were read immediately using a BioTek Synergy 2 Multi- Mode Reader for 10s at a gain of 100–200 (BioTek).

Ex vivo liver imaging

Prior to perfusion, 5×106 Rat2 fibroblasts were labeled with a near infrared fluorescent membrane dye (Qtracker 705 Cell Labeling Kit, Invitrogen). Ex vivo fluorescence imaging with the 665 excitation and 680 emission filter set was performed using the Olympus OV110 (Olympus Corporation) to visualize engraftment in liver. Image visualizations were performed in ImageJ software.

Cell lysis of gLuc-secreting cells in liver tissue

Tissue biopsied post perfusion and stored in -80°C was lysed for Gaussia Luciferase activity using NanoFuel FLASH Assay for Gaussia Luciferase (NanoLight Technology, 319). Approximately 100mg rat liver tissue was homogenized in 200uL lysis buffer, the samples were vortexed and kept on ice. After 15 minutes, 200uL of Gaussia dilution buffer was added to the samples and they were vortexed once more. Gaussia-expressing cells were used as a positive control and were prepared in the same sequence. Tissue perfused with non-transduced cells was used as a negative control. The sample volume for each well was 20uL with N = 4. Finally, 50uL of Coelenterazine buffer was injected into each well and read for Luminescence with an integration time of 10 seconds.

Histological evaluation

Once perfusion was completed tissue samples were taken from three different lobe locations. The collected samples were formalin-fixed to be paraffin-embedded. The tissue was cut into 4-micrometer sections, mounted on a glass slide, and stained for hematoxylin-eosin and/or anti-GFP antibody (Abcam ab1218).

Results

Optimization and characterization of engineered biosensor cells

We utilized self-inactivating lentiviral vectors as previously described [26] to integrate transgenes into the genome of dividing as well as non-dividing cells and pass them onto daughter cells; hence, cells will be stably expressing all genetic reporters. The lentivirus was engineered to contain a GFP gene for purifying engineered cells by FACS. In addition, a secreted gLuc reporter gene was inserted. gLuc enzyme activity can be specifically and easily quantified in a small aliquot of volume (5 μl) ex vivo by adding its respective substrate and measuring enzymatic conversion. gLuc has been used for high sensitivity detection [17, 21] with a half-life of 5–10 minutes in mouse circulation and from as few ~1000 cells in an entire mouse [26, 27]. Since these probes are secreted, accumulate in the blood, and are specific to their corresponding substrates, the signal intensity is very specific and amplified such that even a few dispersed cells can be detected using a simple bioluminescent blood test. This reporter system could enable the indirect observation, in real-time, of cell fate within an organ transplant in vivo by measuring biomarker levels in circulating fluids.

Conditions with high concentrations of lentiviral particle MOI and the cationic vehicle had the highest transduction efficiency (Fig 1A). Once rat fibroblasts were transduced with lentiviral particles, gLuc secretion was characterized during a 6-hour in vitro experiment modeled on the planned perfusion with a washout period (Fig 1B). As expected, gLuc secretion rose after cell seeding, was reduced after media exchange, and rose again with a similar rate in fresh media. When transitioning from an in vitro to an ex vivo organ perfusion model, the typical organ perfusate solution would be the vehicle that engineered cells would be circulating in. We explored gLuc release in vitro between typical fibroblast growth media (DMEM), perfusate using a DMEM base, and perfusate using a Williams E base (as previously utilized for liver perfusion). Perfusate utilizing a DMEM base resulted in higher gLuc secretion (Fig 1B) and was used for subsequent perfusions. The production of gLuc was stable, independent of cell density, and was more sensitive to the concentration of cells per cm2 (Fig 1C) when plotted on a log scale.

Fig 1

Characterization and optimization of secreted luciferase reporter system in engineered rat fibroblasts.

(A) Transduction efficiency measured by GFP expression using flow cytometry of Rat2 cells cultured for 24h in DMEM with different lentiviral particles per cell (MOI) or protamine sulfate (PS) concentrations. (B) In vitro gLuc secretion under different media conditions. A media exchange was performed to wash out accumulated gLuc and fresh media was provided to detect continued secretion. A DMEM base resulted in higher gLuc secretion than the previously-used perfusate with a Williams E base. (C) Release of gLuc under different cell seeding densities. Secretion of engineered rat fibroblasts was stable and increase linearly with seeding density in vitro.

Biosensor cells successfully engraft in ex vivo rat livers by machine perfusion

A six-hour perfusion was previously established as a benchmark for rat liver normothermic perfusion (NMP) to preserve liver metabolic function before successful transplant into recipient rats [24]. Given the eventual aim of these biosensor cells to monitor and regulate transplanted livers, we chose to use the same six-hour perfusion in our experiments. In order to confirm successful engraftment of the biosensor cells into the liver, we infused the cells for the first three hours of the perfusion, then used fresh perfusate to check if the cells washed out. An initial cell mass of 5 x 106 engineered rat fibroblasts was chosen at a concentration of approximately 30 x 103 cells/mL to have a dilute cell suspension well below physiological circulating cell numbers.

To confirm the location of the biosensor cells within the liver, they were treated with a near-infrared (NIR) dye prior to perfusion. Cells injected directly through the cannulated liver did not distribute as thoroughly as perfused cells (S1 Fig), justifying the need for a continuous flow-based seeding process for improved biodistribution of engineered cells within the tissue. As the length of perfusion increased from 2 hours (Fig 2A) to 4 hours (Fig 2B) to 6 hours (Fig 2C), we found that longer perfusions corresponded with qualitatively improved distribution of the cells across the organ bed even after a washout period and addition of fresh perfusate. The 6-hour perfusion time qualitatively enabled distribution of cells into the periphery, which was not clearly populated in livers perfused for 2–4 hours.

Fig 2

Cells successfully engrafted into livers and longer perfusion times correlated with increased distribution in the vasculature.

Near-infrared imaging of cells after infusion into livers under (A) 2-hour total perfusion, (B) 4-hour total perfusion, (C) 6-hour total perfusion. Pseudocolor indicates arbitrary intensity of cells in a given region with red-to-blue corresponding to highest-to-lowest intensity.

Histological confirmation of biosensor cell engraftment

NIR tracking of engineered cells helped initially verify cell engraftment, though could not resolve microscopic resolution of cell localization within the tissue. Histological analysis was further performed to assess the presence of the biosensor cells embedded in the tissue by staining GFP+ cells using for anti-GFP antibody 9F9.F9 (Fig 3A and 3B). Engineered cells contained both GFP and gLuc genes and therefore the location of the cells can be tracked via GFP presence as well. The brown staining in tissue samples indicated GFP+ cells present in the tissue. Cell localization was generally near sinusoidal endothelium near portal veins. Hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining was used initially to histologically assess preservation injury and endothelial cell damage in liver tissue. Confluence of cells and absence of neutrophils is an indication of little to no damage caused due to the perfusion and/or addition of cells [28]. Biopsies (Fig 3C and 3D) from different liver perfusions were shown to have no major pathological damage based on these criteria.

Fig 3

Histology of liver tissue after cell infusion.

Paraffin embedded liver tissue samples taken post perfusion and stained using an Anti-GFP antibody for the presence of GFP in the tissue stained brown at (A) 10x or (B) 40x magnification. Hematoxylin and eosin stain of paraffin embedded liver tissue samples taken post perfusion to check for endothelial cell damage cause by perfusion or the addition of biosensor cells at (C) 10x magnification or (D) 40x magnification.

Engrafted biosensor cells have minimal impact on liver viability functionality

Liver functionality after cell engraftment was further assessed at the organ level by comparing the biochemistries of an experimental group perfused with transduced cells, a group containing un-transduced cells, and a negative control group perfused with no cells. These groups could isolate the effect of cells alone compared to the transgene to identify a root cause of any observed effects.

To assess viability of the perfused grafts, we used the composite viability criterion of Mergental et al which were established to clinically predict primary nonfunction in normothermically perfused human livers [29]. Briefly, one major and two minor criteria must be met in order to deem the liver clinically viable. As shown in Fig 4, perfused livers containing engineered sensor cells produce bile (Fig 4A), a major criterion; show stable flow rates (Fig 4B) and stable perfusate pH (Fig 4C), two minor criteria. Therefore, it can be suggested that the cell infusion and engraftment would not have an impact on the ability of the liver to successfully survive and function after transplant.

Fig 4

Transplant viability assessment for biosensor engrafted livers.

(A) Total bile collected during perfusion. (B) Portal flow rates. (C) Venous pH obtained from perfusate.

To further assess if the cell infusion did affect function, we assessed several additional parameters during perfusion: Metabolic activity of the liver was additionally tested using glucose stability [23] as well as oxygen consumption rate. Hepatocellular damage was further assessed using and aspartate transaminase (AST) release [30] which we have also shown to be correlated to transplant success in similar normothermic rat liver perfusions systems [31]. Finally, we measured liver weight before and after perfusion to evaluate if there was any edema. In all three groups lactate (Fig 5A) and glucose (Fig 5B) values rose initially but began to stabilize after the perfusate switch at T = 3hrs. Oxygen consumption (Fig 5C) was calculated using (S, the solubility constant of water at 37°C = 0.031μL/mL/mm Hg) [15]. Oxygen consumption was found to be higher in the control group due to the higher portal flows. AST production, known to correlate with liver damage, followed a similar trend for all three groups throughout perfusion (Fig 5D). Finally, weight change (Fig 5E) pre- and post-perfusion showed that the engineered fibroblasts did not cause any edema to the liver. Overall, these assays show conclusively that the engrafted biosensor cells did not any negative impact on liver function.

Fig 5

Engrafted biosensor cells have minimal impact on liver functionality.

(A) Lactate, (B) Glucose levels, (C) Oxygen consumption, and (D) AST levels obtained from perfusate samples collected throughout perfusion. Lactate, glucose, and oxygen were measured in real time using a blood chemistry analyzer (i-STAT). (E) Weight of liver measured pre and post perfusion.

Biosensor cells remain viable and secrete detectable gLuc in external circulation fluids

Biosensor cells were added to perfusate to circulate and engraft in liver, and fresh perfusate without cells was swapped in after 180 minutes to test for engraftment. gLuc has been used as a highly sensitive reporter for assessment of cells in vivo, so levels in the perfusate allow us to track its activity within the rat livers [18, 19, 21]. There was a consistent pattern of gLuc secretion: an initial buildup in the first three hours, then a drop at the time of switching to fresh perfusate, and resumption of increase during hours 4–6. (Fig 6A). Given that the rate of production was similar after the washout period, the data suggest that the initial release of gLuc during the engraftment period represented the adherent, engineered cells within the organ itself rather than being derived from circulating cells.

Fig 6

Release of engineered biomarker from engrafted cells during machine perfusion.

(A) Biosensor cells were infused in perfused livers for the first three hours, then swapped out for fresh perfusate to test engraftment. gLuc was measured in the collected perfusate. Livers displayed a pattern of gLuc secretion in the perfusate consistent with the experiment design. (B) Detection of gLuc from frozen tissue biopsies taken post-perfusion. Tissue lysis for gLuc demonstrates successful engraftment of biosensor cells in the liver tissue.

In order to approximate the number of engrafted cells per tissue, we measured intra-tissue gLuc levels from frozen tissue biopsies compared to a known control sample of pure engineered gLuc fibroblasts. Tissue samples were lysed and the transduced cell group, in comparison to the un-transduced cell group (Negative Control), had significantly higher levels of gLuc secretion (Fig 6B). When compared to a positive control of 1 x 106 pure gLuc cells, the signal coming from a 100mg tissue biopsy was ~13% to that of the positive control. This equates to ~1.3 x 103 engineered cells per mg of tissue. When scaled to a 10g liver, the order of magnitude of engineered cells approaches 107 cells which suggests that nearly the entirety of the infused cell population likely engrafted, albeit greater than expected and likely due to the variability of the assay and assumptions herein.

Discussion

Cell therapy is now an established class of medical therapy with approved products such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) being approved in several jurisdictions around the world. We herein describe the foundation of a strategy to robustly distribute a cell therapy into an organ prior to theoretic transplantation using ex vivo machine perfusion. Our approach using machine perfusion has the advantage of efficiently delivering engineered cells into a designated organ. Simple injection of cells distributed poorly (S1 Fig) and therefore may not be able to represent or cover the entirety of the organ with local diffusion being the major form of molecular transport within a tissue bed. At the clinical level, the introduction of machine perfusion into the transplant surgeons’ workflow has already decreased organ discard rates [32] and is quickly being widely adopted throughout the world. Therefore, machine perfusion is a unique platform for applying therapeutic adjuncts, including cell therapy, to modulate organ function. In this study, we utilized our previously established ex vivo liver perfusion system [20] as a novel platform for engrafting cell biosensors in a pre-transplant model. In confirming the biocompatibility of these cells through liver functionality assays and confirming the efficient delivery of these cells via a normothermic perfusion system, we have developed an efficient platform to further the applications in a transplant dysfunction context. Moreover, since the engraftment of cells does not appear to damage the organ, local cell sensors can also provide a way of monitoring organ quality as a release criteria prior to transplant for the resuscitation of marginal donor organs.

The perfusion system allows for the engraftment of engineered cells into an organ under stable operating conditions for machine perfusion. The time of perfusion for optimal engraftment and minimal ex vivo storage is an area of process development worth improving. Extended perfusion time seems to improve cell distribution to peripheral areas of the organ which can be important to provide comprehensive coverage in the tissue bed to detect local microenvironmental signaling that may only diffuse on the order of 0.1–1 mm in interstitial distance. Varying cell numbers is also worth exploration to evaluate the minimal number of cells necessary to provide local microenvironmental coverage across an organ to impact physiological outcomes. For this purpose, it will be useful to have a diseased organ to use as a testbed in order to find these functional limits. Our initial estimates suggest that 5 x 106 engineered rat fibroblasts provided a good coverage of cell distribution with near total engraftment. An engrafted population of ~103 cells per mg tissue would ensure good sampling of the organ. More detailed analysis of counting engrafted cells can give further precision to this number and can be a quantitative metric to compare against tissue functional outcome data.

Fibroblasts were tested as a first model cell type due to their ease of isolation from allogeneic sources, efficient transduction, and the opportunity to create well-characterized frozen banks for “off-the-shelf” use given the unpredictable timing of transplant surgery. Fibroblasts durably engrafted into the liver and showed robust, engineered protein secretion. Notably, bone marrow derived fibroblastic MSCs are already in widespread use clinically [33], and genetically engineered MSCs as a therapeutic are already in clinical trials [34] easing the regulatory pathway for future purposes. MSCs have also been demonstrated as a therapeutic adjuvant in perfused human kidneys to induce a regeneration response [35]; it is therefore possible to envision future approaches where such innate therapeutic capabilities are combined with sensor functions engineered into the cells. For this initial study, we did not choose MSCs because such existing therapeutic effects would be possible confounding factors when analyzing the viability and function of livers during perfusion.

This study develops the protocols to introduce the engineered fibroblasts into perfused grafts, and demonstrates the cells cause no immediate injury or functional impairment to the livers, and their engineered functions remain stable during 6 hours of perfusion. However long-term transplant studies are necessary to develop optimized protocols to ensure safety and function of biosensor cells in vivo. Such studies would also test the long-term fate of cells, and compare other cell types with engraftment potential into a liver, such as endothelial cells, immune cells, or even hepatocytes themselves as natural considerations. We expect that the in vivo durability and fate of engineered cells could vary significantly between different cell types, and it is also possible that different applications will require different cell types. Other considerations could include additional layers of safety, such as suicide switches that our team and others have developed which can also be incorporated into biosensors for simple elimination after transplantation.

Rejection of liver allografts has decreased with the use of immunosuppressive drugs, but still affects 15 to 25% of liver transplant recipients [36, 37]. Evaluation of the immunosuppression state and early diagnosis of acute or chronic organ rejection remains a crucial task, but such monitoring relies largely on clinical judgment [38]. In the case of liver, current biomarkers of transplant such as ALT and AST have poor sensitivity to detect chronic rejection; it is similarly difficult to easily assess development of graft acceptance [38]. Innate immune cytokines such as interleukins, TNF, and IFN-γ are likely first expressed in tissue before hepatic injury and may be valid detection points for biomarkers [38, 39], especially if they can be sensed locally and in tandem. We envision that this initial work can serve as a foundation for the use of engineered (synthetic) cells meant to be engrafted into an organ prior to transplant to act as an in-situ cell-based biosensor for potentially reporting and responding to the inflammatory state of a graft. Customizing the genetic constructs within this biosensor may also find use in dysfunctional organ donations, like fatty or cirrhotic organs, as a way to expand the donor pool itself.

In summary, a proof-of-concept study was performed to verify the engraftment and function of engineered cells perfused into an ex vivo organ. A feasible process of preparing an engineered cells suspension into an organ preservation solution during machine perfusion was established. This study represents the first ever demonstration of embedding engineered cells within an organ prior to transplant and can serve as the basis for new designer engineered cells for specific in vivo functionality along with improved perfusion and monitoring techniques to control and correlate the bioprocess to surgical outcomes post-transplantation.

Bolus injection of cells fails to distribute biosensors throughout organ.

Dyed cells injected directly into the cannulated lived did not distribute as well as perfused cells.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

5 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-19424

Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment of Genetically Engineered Cell Sensors into Transplantable Organs

PLOS ONE

Dear Professor Parekkadan,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The critical concerns are raised on the preservaton of hepatic function after used the cellular biosensor sysytem (considerlly, such as two cuff method might be a pratical way to examine the hepatic function of recipient animal after liver transplantation) , and the comparison of different cell sources, fibroblasts vs mesenchymal stromal cells or mesenchymal stem cells  Please find the following constructive parts of comments of the reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Oct 20 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Yun-Wen Zheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

1. Thank you for including your competing interests statement; "A patent on engineered cell technology and uses in organ transplantation has been filed. The authors declare no other competing financial interests."

We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

2. Thank you for including the follwoing funding information within your manuscript; "This research was conducted with support under Grant No. R21AI134116 (BP, KU)

awarded by the National Institutes of Health and support from the Shriners Foundation

for Children."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"A patent on engineered cell technology and uses in organ transplantation has been filed. The authors declare no other competing financial interests."

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In the study entitled “Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment of Genetically Engineered Cell Sensors into Transplantable Organs”, Parekkadan et al. proves an innovative concept of integrating synthetic reporter cells ex vivo into organs as a transplant-within-a-transplant during functional organ preservation with a vision to use cell biosensors as a broad way to monitor and treat tissue transplants. Overall, this work has a degree of novelty and may be used for clinical application in future. However, I have a few comments as followings:

1. The author concluded that the method of Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment in this study could be used for therapeutic application. However, they only tested the feasibility of Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment using fibroblast cell model. As far as we know, a body of evidence shows that stem cells can display beneficial therapeutic effects on the rejection of liver transplantation and it is not hard to isolated stem cells from allogeneic sources. Therefore, in this regard I suggest that stem cell model should be tested at least.

2. In fact, the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic effects on the rejection of liver transplantation are not fully elucidated. In many studies stem cells have been reported to function by secreting some key factors and exosomes, so it seems there may be no need for stem cells to dwell or distribute specifically in liver and then display protective effects after liver transplantation. Therefore, I suggest the authors to compare the therapeutic effects of stem cells between traditional injection method and Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment method using rat liver transplant model.

Reviewer #2: Parekkadan, et al., present an interesting proof of concept study, wherein they demonstrate the ability of a machine-based perfusion system to distribute transducer fibroblasts, which produce Luciferase, into rat livers as demonstration that a system using in vivo biosensors might someday be used in the solid organ transplant settings to detect clinical events.

The overall concept is innovative and “out of the box.” They demonstrate in this article the ability to take fibroblasts, transduced with lentiviral vectors, and demonstrate that they successfully distribute throughout these organs. However, a number of questions that are relevant to the demonstration of proof of concept and practical ability to stimulate future translation, are worth considering.

First, one critical piece of this is demonstration that the distributed cells do not impair hepatic function. It is not clear to me that the demonstrations here are sufficient. For example, there is minimal edema and AST levels did not rise significantly, but the ideal demonstration of this would have been transplantation of a cellular biosensor-infused liver into an allogeneic (or even syngeneic) recipient with demonstration that the recipient animal can sustain adequate hepatic function.

Second, the choice of fibroblasts (vs., as discussed frequently, mesenchymal stromal cells that have a relatively broad history in clinical transplant settings) might become problematic, with the potential to induce inflammation vs. other cell types. Also the choice of a vector system capable of propagating into daughter cells might raise concerns about inflammatory (or even neoplastic) potential in the real world setting.

All of the above concerns do not undermine the interesting concept, but they raise issues about what level of proof of concept demonstration (e.g., if not sufficient to determine lack of impact on hepatic function and using different cells or vectors than might realistically be used in initial clinical application) has been achieved herein.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Oct 2019

See attached submission for responses to reviewer's comments

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Oct 2019

Ex Vivo Perfusion-Based Engraftment of Genetically Engineered Cell Sensors into Transplantable Organs

PONE-D-19-19424R1

Dear Dr. Parekkadan,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Yun-Wen Zheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

22 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-19424R1

Ex vivo perfusion-based engraftment of genetically engineered cell sensors into transplantable organs

Dear Dr. Parekkadan:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yun-Wen Zheng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE