PEGDA microencapsulated allogeneic islets reverse canine diabetes without immunosuppression.

BACKGROUND: Protection of islets without systemic immunosuppression has been a long-sought goal in the islet transplant field. We conducted a pilot biocompatibility/safety study in healthy dogs followed by a dose-finding efficacy study in diabetic dogs using polyethylene glycol diacrylate (PEGDA) microencapsulated allogeneic canine islets.
METHODS: Prior to the transplants, characterization of the canine islets included the calculations determining the average cell number/islet equivalent. Following measurements of purity, insulin secretion, and insulin, DNA and ATP content, the islets were encapsulated and transplanted interperitoneally into dogs via a catheter, which predominantly attached to the omentum. In the healthy dogs, half of the microspheres injected contained canine islets, the other half of the omentum received empty PEGDA microspheres.
RESULTS: In the biocompatibility study, healthy dogs received increasing doses of cells up to 1.7 M cells/kg body weight, yet no hypoglycemic events were recorded and the dogs presented with no adverse events. At necropsy the microspheres were identified and described as clear with attachment to the omentum. Several of the blood chemistry values that were abnormal prior to the transplants normalized after the transplant. The same observation was made for the diabetic dogs that received higher doses of canine islets. In all diabetic dogs, the insulin required to attempt to control blood glucose was cut by 50-100% after the transplant, down to no required insulin for the course of the 60-day study. The dogs had no adverse events and behavioral monitoring suggested normal activity after recovery from the transplant. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The study provides evidence that PEGDA microencapsulated canine islets reversed the signs of diabetes without immunosuppression and led to states of insulin-independence or significantly lowered insulin requirements in the recipients.

Introduction

The history of the treatment of type 1 diabetes (T1D) has been highlighted by impressive breakthroughs along with frustrating setbacks. Important breakthroughs include the isolation of insulin, recombinant insulin, insulin pumps, continuous glucose monitors and islet transplants. Islet transplants have been a promising treatment for T1D, but a lack of adequate insulin-producing cells from donors and life-long immunosuppression of the recipients have been two of the major setbacks for the field.

For allogeneic islet transplants, protection from immune rejection is currently provided by systemic pharmacological immunosuppression. However, the reality is that, for many people with T1D, the health risk of pharmacological immunosuppression outweighs the potential for an enhanced quality of life with an islet transplant [1]. Localized immune protection by gel encapsulation holds the promise of transplantation of allogeneic cells without systemic immunosuppression [2]. Coating or encapsulating cells in a hydrogel has long been an approach to mitigate destruction of the transplanted cells [3].

Encapsulation techniques can broadly be categorized as microencapsulation in a bead format and macroencapsulation devices. Both have frustrated the field of cell therapy for diabetes due to some shared and unique challenges. Macro-devices often fail due to insufficient immune-isolation, blood thrombosis for devices that require vascular perfusion, and inadequate diffusion to support cell viability and function [4]. Microencapsulation fails predominantly due to a foreign body response (FBR) to the alginate hydrogel used for encapsulation [5].

Being inexpensive and readily manufacturable, alginate has dominated the cell encapsulation field since its introduction in 1980 [3]. The unique, nearly instantaneous gelation mechanism of the seaweed-derived alginate polymers enables simple fabrication of microcapsules [6]. However, due to the foreign nature of the material, it was notoriously prone to fibrotic overgrowth, which ultimately leads to ischemic necrosis of encapsulated cells, premature graft failure [5-10] and eventually unsuccessful clinical trials [11-13]. Some progress with alginate has been made by developing ultra-purification processes, surface treatments, use of co-encapsulated materials, and more stringent control of capsule microstructure [9, 14–16]. Despite these advances, the performance of alginate microcapsules still does not meet widespread clinical needs [11, 17–19].

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is a common compound utilized in drug delivery, cosmetics and food [20]. Diacrylated PEG (PEGDA) is a biocompatible, slow-hardening hydrogel that can be used as a replacement to alginate. PEGDA has advantages because the precursors are widely available and inexpensive with appropriate diffusion characteristics [21, 22]. In different formulations, the base chemistry (PEG) has been used to protect islets from immune rejection in multiple studies [23-25]. Unfortunately, because of the slow gelation properties of PEGDA [26], it could not be formulated as microspheres except when produced using emulsion techniques, which can be harmful to cells. Manufacturing utilizing Core Shell Spherification provides a new technology that expands the number and types of hydrogel precursors that can be formed into microspheres [21]. In this study, we encapsulated canine islets in PEGDA microspheres and characterized the cells and the microspheres. We conducted a pilot biocompatibility/safety study in non-diabetic dogs, transplanting empty microspheres and microspheres containing allogeneic canine islets. The purpose was to determine the biocompatibility of the hydrogel microspheres and to determine whether factors secreated from allogeneic cells within the microspheres could increase the likelihood of a foreign body response. In the subsequent pilot efficacy study, chemically-induced diabetic dogs received increasing doses of encapsulated allogeneic canine islets. Dogs were monitored for blood glucose, weight, blood chemistry, urinalysis, hemotological analysis and pathological/histological assessment.

Methods

Islet isolation

Canine islets were obtained locally from donors euthanized for other reasons from local veterinary clinics with consent by owners and the attending veterinarian or from completed research protocols from nonrelated studies. A total of 15 healthy mixed-breed male and female donors were utilized for the study. All dogs were negative for heartworm and were up-to-date in vaccinations. The donor weights varied from 24 to 68 pounds with a mix of breeds including mutts, pointer, German wirehair, beagle, terrier and pit bull mix. All donors were scheduled for euthanasia for other healthcare reasons and were screened for endocrine disorders. The collection of tissue from deceased donors euthanized for reasons other than organ procurement was determined to be exempt by the University of Kansas Medical Center IACUC. Euthanasia was performed by a licensed veterinarian overseeing the care of each animal.

The procurement and digestion protocol followed our previously published methods [27]. The pancreata were removed and transported to the lab in cold conditions where they were trimmed of fat, followed by collagenase digestion. Density gradient purification was performed following our described protocol [27]. Islet equivalents (IEQ) volumes were determined with dithizone staining according to standard published protocols [28, 29]. Canine islets were cultured in CMRL 1066 supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM glutamine, 10 mM nicotinamide and a 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution at 37°C and 5% CO2.

Canine cell number conversion

We have previously shown that IEQ measurements overestimate the number of cells in a transplant [30]. We published procedures to convert rat and human islets into cell numbers [31, 32]. Here, the procedure was repeated with canine islets, which were cultured in CMRL 1066 supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum, 2 mM glutamine, 10 mM nicotinamide and a 1% antibiotic-antimycotic solution at 37°C and 5% CO2. Islets from 3 donors for a total of 450 islets were manually placed in single wells of 384 well plates with 20 μL of media/well (one islet/well). The diameter in the X and Y directions and the total perimeter of each individual islet was measured on a Zeiss AXIO inverted microscope with a Jenoptick C3 camera using Capture Pro V2.8.8 software. Each islet was then dispersed into single cells by exposure to 2 mL of trypsin (0.5%) and manual pipetting. The well contents were mixed and incubated at 37°C for 1 hour. Individual cells per well were counted on a Biotek Cytation 5 Imaging microplate reader. The data were plotted in a scatter plot to determine the equation to convert canine islet diameters to single cell numbers.

Critical quality assurance

Islet purity

Aliquots of islets from each isolation were tested for purity using our previously published methods [27]. Islets were exposed to dithizone (Sigma Aldrich) prepared fresh by dissolving dithizone in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) at 10 mg/mL. The solution was diluted to a final concentration of 0.2 mg/mL with PBS. Islets were incubated in the dithizone solution at a 10% v/v ratio. The samples were examined via bright field microscopy for the dark red color resulting from exposure to dithizone. Islet purity was estimated to the nearest 5% for each sample. Isolations with purity below 60% were considered unacceptable and were not used for the transplants.

To verify the accuracy of dithizone staining of canine islets for purity measurement another indicator of insulin, FluoZin-3 AM (Thermo Fisher), was tested. Samples of islets were placed in individual wells of a 384 well plate and dispersed into single cells as described above. Cells were exposed to FluoZin-3 AM (1 μL) added to each well and incubated at 37°C for 1 hour. Images were collected on a Biotek Cytation 5 Imaging Multi-Mode microplate reader and the number of FluoZin-positive cells counted and used to calculate the % insulin positive cells by the following equation:

Viability

Prior to transplantation, encapsulated islets were stained for viability. Cells were incubated in calcein AM (4 μM, ThermoFisher) and propidium iodide (1 μg/mL, ThermoFisher) for 30 minutes. Fluorescence was captured with a Cytation 5 Imaging Multi-Mode Reader (Biotek Instruments). Using the Cytation software, the area of calcein-stained (live) cells was divided by the total cell area (obtained with brightfield images of the same fields) resulting in the percentage of live cells. Following encapsulation, microspheres were incubated in calcein AM (4 μM, ThermoFisher) and propidium iodide (1 μg/mL, ThermoFisher) for 40 minutes and the same procedures followed as described for unencapsulated cells.

Insulin secretion

Glucose stimulated insulin secretion was conducted using our previously published protocol [27, 33]. Briefly, the unencapsulated canine islets were exposed to glucose solutions based on Earl’s Balanced Salt Solution (EBSS) buffer with 0.1% BSA and sodium bicarbonate added (pH 7.4, 37°C at 5% CO2). Islets were first equilibrated to the low glucose condition of 2.8 mM for 1 h. Transwell inserts in a 24-well plate held approximately 22,000 cells and were used to transfer the islets to increasing concentrations of glucose. Supernatant media was collected after 1 hour in each concentration and stored at −80°C until quantification was performed using Mercodia’s canine insulin ELISA kit.

To measure glucose stimulated insulin secretion from encapsulated cells, approximately 10 microspheres were incubated as described above to equilibration in low glucose. Rather than the transwell procedure, different microspheres were incubated in 2.8, 16.7 or 28 mM containing 30 mM K+ as a secretagogue for 90 minutes.

Insulin content

Total protein of islet aliquots was extracted by acid ethanol (0.18 MHCl in 95% ethanol) as we have published previously [34]. Briefly, the total insulin content was determined by canine insulin ELISA (Mercodia). Insulin content was normalized to cell number as we have done previously [35].

DNA and ATP content

To isolate total DNA from islets, the GeneJET Genomic DNA Purification Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific) was used following the manufacturer’s recommendations. Briefly, a predetermined number of islets was incubated in 180 μL of digestion solution and 20 μL proteinase K for 1–3 hrs in a 37°C shaking water bath followed by RNAse treatment. Total DNA was then isolated by cell lysis and a series of ethanol washes. Eluted DNA was then quantitated using the Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA Assay Kit (ThermoFisher Scientific) according to manufacturer’s instructions.

ATP levels were measured using a luminescent ATP assay (CellTiter-Glo; Promega) following the manufacturer’s instructions. Islets were distributed in 96 well plates in CMRL media. They were exposed to the CellTiter-Glo reagent, and 15 min later luminescence read on a Cytation 5 Imaging Multi-Mode Reader.

Encapsulant manufacturing

PEGDA microspheres were manufactured following our previously published Core Shell Spherification (CSS) protocol [21]. Briefly, PEGDA hydrogel precursor solution was prepared by dissolving PEGDA 3,400 and 20,000 (Laysan Bio, Inc.) at 18% and 12% (w/w), respectively, in a buffer containing 100 mM calcium chloride, 10 mM HEPES, and 0.025% (w/v) Irgacure 2959 followed by filtering through a 0.22-mm syringe. The viscosity of the precursor was measured with a Cannon-Manning Semi-Micro calibrated glass capillary viscometer at room temperature. The precursor was extruded via an automated droplet generator; a Buchi 395-Pro Encapsulator (Buchi Corporation, Newcastle, DE) equipped with an air jet nozzle system and a 400-micron diameter inner fluid nozzle within a 1.5 mm concentric air nozzle. The droplets fell into a bath of 0.15% (w/v) sodium alginate (Protanal LF 10/60, FMC Corp), Irgacure 2959 (0.025% w/v), 0.1% Tween 20, mannitol (300 mM), and adjusted to pH 7.6. The PEGDA droplets were irradiated with long-wave UV light of 40 mW/cm2 at the center of the bath (PortaRay 400, Uvitron International) through extrusion and for an additional 1 minute. The resulting microspheres were rinsed twice in a 25 mM citrate buffer in DPBS for 5 minutes and collected using a steel mesh screen suspended in DPBS. Empty PEGDA microspheres were cultured and stored at 24°C and 5% CO2. Microspheres were transported in suspension in cold storage solution in a sealed sterile vessel at 2–8°C until administration.

The islet-containing microspheres were fabricated as described above except that the canine islets were mixed into the precursor at a 10:1 volume ratio just prior to droplet generation. Fabrication of islet-microspheres was done aseptically in a closed, sterile bioreactor system as described above.

Recipient dogs

Seven beagles were obtained from Marshall or Ridglan Farms. The non-diabetic dogs were maintained at Veterinary & Biomedical Research Center and the diabetic dogs at Sinclair Research. Both organizations approved the full protocols and addendums through their IACUCs. All dogs were acclimated at the study site for a minimum of 10 days. Dogs were housed in a minimum of 8x8 runs with raised floors, maintained at 64–84°F and a 12–12 dark/light cycle. Dogs were monitored by an automated room building surveillance system as well as by video access 24/7. They were fed commercial dog chow, twice daily with free access to water.

Diabetes induction

Diabetes was induced in 3 of the 7 dogs with a single injection of a combination of alloxan (40 mg/kg) and streptozotocin (30 mg/kg) IV. Subsequently blood glucose levels were maintained with twice daily insulin (Vetsulin) injections during the study period. Blood glucose values were measured at least twice daily for each animal using a portable glucometer.

Transplant procedure

The microspheres were placed into the omental tissue via a laparotomy under general anesthesia. The first 4 non-diabetic dogs (safety study) received half of the dose with empty microspheres on one side of the omentum and the other half were islet-containing microspheres were infused on the other side. In this manner, the effect of secretory factors from the cells could be separated from a possible foreign body response to the hydrogel. In addition, we examined the blood glucose for any negative effect of the allogeneic islets or hydrogel on blood chemistry and hematology. For the second efficacy portion of the study, 3 diabetic dogs received escalating doses of islet-containing microspheres with monitoring as described above.

Animals were anesthetized either endotracheally or with a mask using isofluorane (0.5% to 5% in 100% oxygen). The target area was prepped using standard surgical procedures. The midline abdominal incision was made, and the subcutaneous tissue dissected longitudinally and the linea alba identified. The peritoneum was exposed with a large enough opening to fit the catheter for direct infusion. The tip of the catheter was placed near or touching the omentum and the encapsulated cells infused into the area frequently repositioning the catheter to cover the surface with microbeads. The animals were monitored closely during surgical procedures and observed until fully recovered from anesthesia post-surgery.

Post-transplant monitoring

General in-cage observations for mortality/moribundity were made at least twice daily. Physical examinations included the skin (particularly abdomen) and external ears, eyes, abdomen, behavior, and general body condition. Dogs were weighed weekly. Throughout the monitoring period, blood chemistry, urinalysis, and hematological analysis were conducted weekly or every 2 weeks by an independent reference laboratory. Blood glucose was monitored 2/day initially after the transplant reducing to daily or every other day as dog blood glucose normalized. Hypoglycemia was defined a < 60 mgdL [36]. Hyperglycemia was defined as > 250 mg/dL [37] with diabetes defined as persistent non-fasting hyperglycemia for 1 week.

Study termination

Animals were humanely euthanized with Fatal Plus, following sedation with Telazol and Xylazine. A complete necropsy was performed on each animal by a supervising pathologist, which included examination of the external surfaces, all orifices, the cranial, thoracic, abdominal and pelvic cavities, including contents. The implantation site and internal organs were retained for subsequent tissue preservation and histopathological analysis.

Samples of tissues surrounding the transplant site as well as other organs were preserved in 10% neutral buffered formalin (NBF), except for the eyes and optic nerve, which were placed in Davidson’s solution for 1–3 days and then stored in 10% NBF. Tissues were embedded in paraffin, sectioned and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The slides were evaluated by a DVM pathologist.

Statistics

One-way ANOVA with Tukey’s test for post-hoc analysis was used for all statistical comparisons with p < 0.05.

Results

Canine islet characterization

Islet dosing

Cell therapies are predominantly dosed based on the cell number, but in the islet transplant field, IEQs are still used. There are significant differences in the average number of cells per IEQ between species [31, 32]. Thus, it was important to use our previously published protocol [31, 32] to determine the average number of cells in canine islets of different diameters. Fig 1A illustrates the correlation between the diameter of canine islets and the number of single cells within each islet (R = 0.75). The data used to create the graph are provided in S1 Table in S1 File. Based on the values, a canine islet of 150 μm diameter (one IEQ) would contain an average of 430 cells, which is dramatically lower than the number of cells/IEQ for human or rat islets [31, 32]. The correlation between size and cell number was used to calculate dosing of the subsequent transplants. The majority of isolations were predominantly comprised of islets under 50 μm in diameter (Table 1; Data provided in S2 Table in S1 File).

Fig 1

Characterization of canine islets from deceased donors.

A) Diameters of 450 freshly-isolated canine islets were measured in the X and Y direction, and subsequently dispersed into single cells, which were counted. The correlation between the canine islet diameters and cell numbers were plotted. The line indicates the linear fit. B) An example of dithizone-stained canine islets with red staining the endocrine cells and the non-cells (tan) indicating exocrine tissue. Scale bar = 500 μm. C) FluoZin 3 AM was used to further identify canine islets, shown as bright green in the images. The upper image is fluorescence only while the lower image is a brightfield overlay. Scale bar = 500 μm for all images. D) Static incubations studies of canine islets showed that they responded to increasing concentrations of glucose with higher levels of insulin secretion.

Table 1

Islet characteristics for biocompatibility/safety study.

Recipient ID	Purity (% β-cells)	Size Distribution (% < 50 μm diameter)	Viability pre-encapsulation (% live)	microsphere size (μm)	Average islet clusters per microsphere
1	45 + 4	77.3	75.4	1054	12.1 + 0.5
2	60 + 2	43.0	72.1	1033	12.3 + 0.8
3	49 + 5	74.7	71.5	930	12.6 + .06
4	52 + 6	74.7	71.0	930	13.2 + 0.7

For batches of intact islets that were used in the transplants, dithizone staining was used to determine the purity of the sample (Fig 1B). The dithizone-based purity of the dog islets ranged from 41–65% and is provided for each transplant in Table 1. To verify the results, additional samples were exposed to FluoZin 3 AM (Fig 1C). On average 40–45% of the cells within each canine islet sample were FluoZin 3 AM positive (β-cells) (Table 2 and S3 Table in S1 File). The lower image shows an overlay of both the fluorescence and the bright field images used to calculate the total cellular area.

Table 2

Islet characteristics for efficacy study.

Dog ID	Purity (% β-cells)	Size (% < 50 μm diameter)	Viability pre-encapsulation (% live)	Viability post-encapsulation (% live)	ATP pM/cell	Insulin pg/cell	Islet Clusters/sphere	Sphere diameter (μm)
5	41 + 2	69.8	70.6	69.2	0.021	11.3	15.8 + 1.6	1092
	65 + 5	75.8	76.0	69.3			18.8 + 0.8*	960
6	49 + 2	74.4	88.9	66.5	0.018	15.9	14.7 + 0.6	911
7	49 + 3	84.4	76.5	74.9	0.029	10.9	16.5 + 1.2	991
	65 + 5	75.8	76.0	69.3			15.2 + 0.7	960

*P<0.001.

Islet viability

Live-dead staining was conducted on islets prior to encapsulation (S4 Table in S1 File) and after microencapsulation for the last 5 batches and ex vivo when sufficient loose microspheres could be obtained from the last dog (S5 Table in S1 File). Cells were stained with calcein (green) identifying live cells and PI (red) identifying dead cells. Viability of the cells prior to encapsulation ranged from 71 to 89% (Tables 1 and 2). There was no statistical difference in the pre- or post-encapsulation viability of the islets infused into healthy or diabetic dogs (Tables 1 and 2).

Functional characterization

Canine islets were assayed for stimulated insulin secretion using static incubation techniques. Islets were exposed to the following glucose concentrations: 0, 2.8, 5.6, 11.2, 16.8, 22.4, 28, 33.6 and 50 mM glucose for one hour (S6 Table in S1 File). When exposed to increasing concentrations of glucose, the islets secreted more insulin up to 50 mM glucose, which induced a slight decline in secreted insulin compared to 33.6 mM (Fig 1D), similar to values obtained previously for canine islets [27].

The islets transplanted into the three diabetic dogs (recipients 5–7) underwent additional characterization. Aliquots were used for ATP and insulin determinations with the results shown in Table 2. The values were calculated as the amount per cell using the cell number conversion shown in Fig 1A and S7 Table in S1 File. Cellular ATP and insulin levels were not statistically different across transplant batches.

Encapsulated islets

Canine islets were encapsulated in a PEGDA formulation resulting in microspheres averaging 953.4 + 8.2 μm in diameter (Fig 2A). The average microsphere diameter for each batch is found in Tables 1 and 2 with the raw data provided in S8 Table in S1 File. Dithizone staining of the encapsulated cells identified the insulin-positive islets contained within the microspheres (Fig 2B) but could not be used to determine purity values after encapsulation, due to the 3D nature and the blunted dithizone staining after encapsulation. Counts were made of the number of dithizone-stained clusters per microsphere (S9 Table in S1 File). There were no statistical differences in the number of islet clusters/ sphere administered to the healthy dogs (Table 1). However, in the transplants given to the diabetic dogs, the islets/sphere was higher for the second transplant for dog #5 compared to all other groups (Table 2).

Fig 2

Characterization of microencapsulated canine islets.

A) Typical field of microspheres containing canine islets. B) Dithizone staining of the encapsulated cells indicated the insulin-positive islets contained within the microspheres. C) Viability was determined with calcein and PI showing a typical example. Scale bars = 1 mm for all images. D) Static incubation insulin release was measured from encapsulated islets in low (2.8 mM), high (16.7 mM) and high glucose with 30mM K+ (secretagogue).

Viability measurements after encapsulation were not collected for the first four dogs in the biocompatibility study. Fig 2C provides an example of the viability staining following microencapsulation. Post-encapsulation viability remained high between 67 and 75% for the transplants into diabetic dogs (Table 2 and S5 Table in S1 File). With encapsulation, the death of single cells was noted, while intact islets continued to thrive in the PEGDA formulation.

Insulin secretion of the encapsulated cells was measured with static incubation (S10 Table in S1 File). Fig 2D summarizes the increase in insulin secretion with exposure to high glucose or high glucose with a secretagogue (high K+).

In life data

Canine transplants

To test the biocompatibility of the PEGDA microspheres in dogs, four healthy dogs received encapsulated islets on one side of the omentum with empty microspheres injected into the opposite side. Using this method, if a foreign body response was noted, the effect of the hydrogel could be separated from the effect of the cells plus hydrogel. In a subsequent efficacy study, three diabetic dogs received increasing doses of encapsulated islets into the omentum. Table 3 provides a summary of the recipients including the total islet dose (cells/kg body weight). The procedure, using a catheter to infuse the encapsulated cells is shown in Fig 3A. After administration, a portion of the omentum was exposed in one animal showing the microspheres sticking to the tissue (Fig 3B).

Table 3

Transplant description.

Dog ID	Disease Status	Weight	Sex	Age (years)	Dose (cells/kg bw)	Duration post-transplant
1	Healthy	11.0	F	4	205,090	28
2	Healthy	10.0	F	4	225,670	28
3	Healthy	13.6	F	4	595,000	14
4	Healthy	12.7	F	4	1,679,500	14
5	DM	9.4	M	7	5,145,083	63
6	DM	9.5	M	7	6,238,850	65
7	DM	7.4	M	7	7,370,575	58

Fig 3

Infusion procedure.

A) Encapsulated islets were infused into the peritoneum of the dogs using a sterile syringe and catheter. B) After infusion, a portion of the omentum was retrieved illustrating the adherence of the microspheres to the omentum, which was immediately returned to the peritoneum.

All of the dogs tolerated the procedure well based on daily observations of attitude, appetite scores, urination scores, water consumption, and rectal temperature, which were all normal for the duration of the two studies with an average body temperature of 100.06. In the non-diabetic dogs, there was little change in the average weekly body weight after their transplants (Fig 4A). For the diabetic dogs, there was a slight increase in weekly body weight after the transplants (S11 Table in S1 File). This is important as diabetic dogs typically lose weight when treated with insulin only.

Fig 4

Body weight and blood glucose values.

A) Body weight was obtained weekly showing little change over the course of the two studies. B) Fasting blood glucose was monitored weekly in the animals. Dogs #1–4 showed no change in blood glucose. Dog #5 had the lowest total dose of islets among the diabetic dogs that were administered in 2 doses; the first on day 0 and the second 2 weeks later. He had a temporary return to blood glucose levels within the normal range. Dog #6 had a higher dose, but administered at one time. This dog had little response to the transplant. Dog #7 had the highest dose again administered in 2 rounds and showed a full response with no further requirement for exogenous insulin. C) More detail in the daily fluctuations of the non-fasting blood glucose levels is provided for the 3 diabetic dogs.

Blood glucose

For the first four healthy dogs that received microspheres with half of the spheres containing islets, there were no measured hypoglycemic events. Weekly fasting blood glucose values are shown in Fig 4B with the supporting data in S12 Table in S1 File. This was even true for dog #4 that received the highest dose of cells for the healthy dogs (1.7 M cells/kg) (Table 3).

For the diabetic group, dog #5, received an escalating dose of encapsulated islets in two separate administrations for a total of 5.1 M cells/kg. The first dose was approximately 1.46 M cells/kg and normalized blood glucose with only half of the dose of insulin required compared to the pre-transplant levels (Table 4). The second dose was 3.69 M cells/kg, which maintained blood glucose in the target range for more than 3 weeks (Fig 4C with supporting data in S13 Table in S1 File). However, after that time, the blood glucose values steadily increased and daily insulin injections were resumed, although requiring approximately 1/6 the insulin dose required prior to the transplant (Table 4). Fasting blood glucose post transplantation show the gradual increase in blood glucose to the termination of the study (Fig 4B).

Table 4

Insulin utilization.

Dog ID	Disease Status	Number of Transplants	Timing of Transplants (Day)	Total Cells Transplanted	Average insulin pre-transplant	Average insulin post-transplant
1	Healthy	1	0	2,235,481	0	0
2	Healthy	1	0	2,662,906	0	0
3	Healthy	1	0	7,021,000	0	0
4	Healthy	1	0	21,329,650	0	0
5	DM	2	0	13,701,318	5.8 + 0.7	2.0 + 0.5
			14	34,662,469		1.1+ 0.2
6	DM	1	0	59,269,051	11.0 + 1.3	6.1 + 0.2
7	DM	2	0	19,879,789	12.9 + 0.8	0.6 + 0.1
			21	34,662,469		0.0 + 0.0

Recipient #6 received a single administration at a higher total of 6.2 M cells/kg (Table 3). There was an initial decline in blood glucose into the target range, but days later the average daily non-fasted blood glucose was over 300 mg/dL (Fig 4C). Prior to the transplant, the dog required an average of 11 units of insulin/day and was still hyperglycemic most of the time with an average blood glucose of 330 mg/dL. After the transplant the insulin requirement was reduced to 6 units of insulin daily (Table 4). Fasting blood glucose readings over the course of the study illustrated the lack of long-term effect with the single dose (Fig 4B).

Dog #7 was dosed at the highest level with a total transplant of 7.4 M cells/kg administered in two procedures. After the first transplant, the blood glucose fell to the target range for most of the following 3 weeks (Fig 4C). Prior to the first transplant, the dog required an average of nearly 13 units of insulin/day (Table 4). After the first transplant, the insulin requirement averaged less than 1 unit per day. Following the second transplant no further insulin was administered and the blood glucose normalized and maintained those levels through termination of the study. The fasting blood glucose values illustrate the improved blood glucose regulation following the second transplant (Fig 4B with supporting data provided in S12 Table in S1 File).

While the dose of the transplants (cells/kg recipient body weight) tracked with the final blood glucose levels, we calculated other cellular characteristics to determine if they also tracked with the final week’s average blood glucose levels (Table 5). The cellular DNA per kg body weight of each recipient can serve as a surrogate for cell number. Acknowledging that three animals is not sufficient to draw statistical conclusions, none of the calculated cellular measurements (DNA, ATP, or insulin levels) tracked as well as the cells/body weight in this pilot study.

Table 5

Transplant cellular characteristics.

Recipient ID	Cell number/kg	DNA μg/kg	ATP nmol/kg	Insulin μg/kg	Average BG (final week)
5	5.1	242.7	124.0	75.6	405
6	6.2	369.5	110.5	99.3	248
7	7.4	356.5	240.3	97.6	114

Blood chemistry

Blood chemistry analysis was conducted by a third-party reference laboratory. Only the abnormal values are included in Table 6. The full blood chemistry results are presented in S14 Table in S1 File. The tables include the values prior to the first transplant, 1 week following the first transplant and at the termination of the study. It is important to recognize that the duration was different for each group (Table 3). For several factors, the transplants normalized blood chemistry values, if not bringing them into the normal range. For example, dogs #1–4 had abnormally high creatinine kinase prior to the implantation procedure, but by the study end, the values had all normalized. Similar trends of normalization of values that were out-of-range prior to the transplants were identified for creatine kinase, globulin, total protein, calcium, and potassium. The liver enzymes ALP, AST and ALT were high in all of the diabetic dogs (#5–7) but normalized after the transplants. However, dog #1 responded in the opposite manner with normal or low values prior to the transplant and elevated values after. Although he had no overt clinical signs of liver dysfunction through the study. Dog #1 had received the lowest dose of islets, thus, it seems unlikely that the reaction was due solely to the transplant.

Table 6

Abnormal blood chemistry values.

Test	Normal Range	Dog ID	Pre	1 wk post	Termination
ALP (U/L)	5–160	1	10	65	276
		5	162	94	101
		6	175	108	83
		7	224	123	105
AST (U/L)	16–55	1	49	68	184
ALT (U/L)	18–121	1	8	268	731
		5	184	87	79
		6	148	45	30
		7	439	98	63
Creatine kinase (U/L)	10–200	1	534	274	150
		2	586	238	135
		3	285	194	137
		4	746	346	141
Total bilirubin (mg/dL)	0.0–0.3	1	0.4	0.5	0.5
		2	0.6	0.3	0.2
		4	0.7	0.5	0.3
Bilirubin conjugated (mg/dL)	0.0–0.1	1	0.0	0.2	0.1
Bilirubin unconjugated (mg/dL)	0.0–0.2	1	0.4	0.2	0.6
		2	0.5	0.2	0.1
		4	0.6	0.2	0.1
Globulin (g/dL)	2.4–4.0	2	2.2	3.2	3.0
Total Protein (g/dL)	5.5–7.5	2	5.2	6.0	6.0
Creatinine (mg/dL)	0.5–1.5	2	0.5	0.4	0.4
		4	0.3	0.4	0.4
		6	0.4	0.7	0.8
Calcium (mg/dL)	8.8–11.2	1	7.5	9.0	9.7
		2	6.4	8.9	10.0
		3	7.3	9.6	10.3
		4	6.2	9.3	10.1
Phosphorus (mg/dL)	2.5–6.1	7	6.5	6.7	5.4
Chloride (mmol/L)	108–119	3	107	108	107
		4	107	107	104
		5	109	106	105
		6	108	107	104
Potassium (mmol/L)	4.0–4.5	1	5.5	5.1	5.1
		2	5.0	4.6	4.4
		3	5.0	4.7	4.5
		4	5.3	4.7	4.4
		5	4.7	4.0	5.1
		6	3.9	4.1	4.4

Hematology and urinalysis

Hematology analysis was normal for all readings with the exception of those shown in Table 7 (complete hematology values included in S15 Table in S1 File). Slightly low Mean corpuscular hemoglobin (MCH) was noted in the diabetic dog #7 prior to the transplant, which normalized by the termination of the study. When the values were calculated as concentrations all the dogs showed low levels of mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC), but again normalized by the end of the study. The same was true for the eosinophil count for dog #4. Only dog #5 had a normal value that became abnormal after the transplant. His monocytes count was slightly elevated 1 week after the transplant, but again normalized by the end of the study. All other hematological values were within the normal range. Urinalysis revealed some blood in the urine in 2 dogs before the transplants, which did not change after transplantation. Analysis of coagulation factors revealed the fibrinogen levels rose in 5 dogs after the transplants, but by study ends, only 2 dogs had values above the normal range.

Table 7

Hematology.

Test	Normal Range	Dog ID	Pre	1 week post	Termination
MCH	21.9–26.1	7	21.8	21.8	23.3
MCHC	32.6–39.2	5	31.2	31.3	38.4
		6	32.3	31.9	33.6
		7	31.5	31.4	33.6
Monocytes	130–1150	5	750	1200	940
Eosinophils	70–1490	4	54	123	190
Coagulation–Fibrinogen	90–255	2	189	393	241
		3	151	352	214
		5	335	377	324
		6	196	382	186
		7	195	276	261

Pathology results

At the termination of the study, the administration site (the omentum) was exposed and attached microspheres were identified (Fig 5A and 5B). The histopathological analysis of organs and tissue from dogs #3 and #4 found that 14 days after the transplants the dogs had moderate multilocular inflammatory responses. One dog showed signs of a foreign body response surrounding some of the microspheres on day 14 (Fig 6A). By day 28, the inflammatory response was decreased and described as mild in dogs #1 and #2 (Fig 6B). The inflammatory cells noted surrounding the microspheres at 14 days (Fig 6A) were absent at 28 days and only a minimal ring of fibrotic tissue surrounded the microspheres within healthy omentum (Fig 6B). Importantly, there were no differences noted between the portions of the omentum that had cell-containing microspheres versus areas with empty microspheres (Fig 6C and 6D).

Fig 5

Necropsy images of microspheres attached to the omentum.

A) The retrieved omentum is shown from dog #7 with microspheres scattered throughout the tissue. B) A higher magnification of the tissue from another animal illustrates the location of the microspheres (black arrows) and the surrounding blood supply with healthy omentum.

Fig 6

Histology of transplant sites in healthy dogs.

A) Example of the mild peri-microspheres fibrosis with inflammatory cells in the surrounding tissue was noted in healthy dogs at 14 days. B) By 28 days the inflammatory response had decreased and was pathologically described as mild. C) Example of foreign body response surrounding microsphere without cells. D) Example of response to microsphere containing allogeneic canine islets. All scale bars = 1000 μm.

In the diabetic animals, the islet-containing microspheres were identified within the omentum and attached to the surface of the liver and the body of the pancreas. The other organs examined had no identified microspheres and were classified as unremarkable. Those included the mesenteric lymph nodes, the large and small intestines, head and tail of the pancreas, spleen, testes, and bladder. Mild fibrosis was identified in dog #5 within the omentum surrounding the microspheres (Fig 7A). Dog #6 had only minimal fibrosis around some of the microspheres (Fig 7B). Dog #7 had a few microspheres attached to the liver that were surrounded by granulomatous inflammation and fibrosis (Fig 7C). All other sites examined were normal. An important observation was the severe foreign body response that was noted when microspheres were clustered together, rather than separated. While the vast majority of the transplanted material consisted of individual spheres, when microspheres were found near each other, the foreign body response was exaggerated (Fig 7D).

Fig 7

Histology of transplant sites int diabetic dogs.

A & B) In diabetic dogs with longer time points (58–65 days) any indication of a foreign body response in the omentum was classified as mild with incomplete fibrotic rings. C) However when a few microspheres attached to the liver, granulomatous inflammation and fibrosis were noted. D) Microspheres within the omentum, but clustered together, also elicited a stronger foreign body response than individual microspheres. All scale bars = 1000 μm.

Explanted microspheres

The majority of microspheres were attached to the omentum, however, some free microspheres were retrieved and were found to be void of any cellular overgrowth or fibrosis as can be noted in Fig 8A. Encapsulated cells were stained for viability using calcein (green) for live cells and propidium iodide (red) for dead cells (Fig 8A) demonstrating live islets retrieved from the omentum. A higher magnification image from another microsphere revealed a few dead cells within the individual islets (Fig 8B). The average viability of the canine islets prior to encapsulation, after encapsulation and after transplantation (explants) were compared in Fig 8C with supporting data provided in S5 Table in S1 File. There were no statistical differences between the groups.

Fig 8

Viability of cells from explanted microspheres.

A) A typical microsphere following retrieval from a diabetic dog shows intact encapsulated islets stained for viability (green). Scale bar = 500 μm. B) A higher magnification of a microspheres indicates the viability within the islets with rare red staining for dead cells, while the majority of the cells were green (alive). Scale Bar = 40 μm. C) Calcein staining was calculated as a percentage of the total cellular area and compared with the viability of the canine islets prior to encapsulation, after encapsulation (before transplant) and after the transplantation (explant). There were no statistical differences between the groups.

Dithizone staining of the encapsulated islets were used to compare the number of insulin-positive islet clusters prior to transplant and in the explanted microspheres at the termination of the study (Fig 9A). The greatest percentage of cell clusters within the microspheres stained positive for dithizone and there was no statistical difference in the percentage of dithizone-positive clusters before and after transplantation (Fig 9B).

Fig 9

Dithizone staining of explanted microspheres.

A) Example of a positively stained islet for insulin (via dithizone). Scale bar = 20 μm. B) The percentage of insulin-positive clusters (dithizone stained) were compared prior to transplantation and after. There were no differences between the groups.

Discussion

The results of the pilot biocompatibility and efficacy studies described here validate the use of PEGDA microspheres as an encapsulant to protect allogeneic cells from immune destruction, while allowing secretion of insulin from the cells to normalize blood glucose values. We have characterized fully the PEGDA formulation utilized here in previous publications showing the monodispersity, swelling ratio, diffusion characteristics and rheology [38]. In addition, we compared the results of transplants using encapsulated and unencapsulated canine islets into mice [21]. In addition, initial indications of a minimum effective dose were determined. PEG has long been utilized to improve the biocompatibility profile of other encapsulating compounds such as alginate [39, 40]. In fact, the practice continues today with the combination of PEG with other encapsulants to obtain the desired physical features such as durability while improving the biocompatibility [41, 42]. Specific to islets, PEG has been used with laborious methods that assemble individual layers of streptavidin and biotin-PEG conjugates to coat single islets [43]. The PEG coating was reported to improve glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, but the intense manufacturing procedure limits it applicability in the clinical setting.

While the use of a chemically-induced diabetic animal model is not optimal, these studies pave the way for subsequent research in spontaneously diabetic dogs, an excellent animal model for human type 1 diabetes. However, there are still major gaps in our understanding of canine diabetes and specifically characterization of canine islets. Canine islets have different features compared to human islets including a smaller size and lower density (Table 1 and Fig 1A), which is consistent with previous publications [31, 32, 44]. This may explain the nearly linear secretion of insulin in response to increasing glucose concentrations. Canine islets tend to be smaller in diameter than human or rat islets as noted in Table 1. We have previously published work correlating islet diameters to insulin secretion in various species [45, 46].

While the canine islet purity achieved was within the published ranges [27, 44, 47, 48], the islet cell viability was slightly lower compared to previously published ranges of 87% [48] to 95% [27]. However, our viability and purity values were within the acceptable range published by the Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry for humans with ranges [49]. Canine islets are notoriously difficult to isolate from the pancreas [21, 44] due partly to their small size (Tables 1 and 2) and low cell density (Fig 1A), resulting in lower initial viabilities after isolation. It is possible that factors released from dead or dying cells could attribute to some of the fibrosis noted in the surrounding tissue after transplantation, which is why the study in healthy dogs was conducted. Half of the microspheres infused into dogs #1–4 were empty while the other half contained cells. There were no differences in the amount or type of inflammatory response surrounding microspheres with and without cells (Fig 6C and 6D). Thus, lower viability values likely were not responsible for some of the foreign body response that was noted by the pathologists.

The study design required the administration of small doses of islets into healthy non-diabetic dogs to assess the biocompatibility of the cells plus hydrogel. The four healthy dogs received increasing doses of islets to the highest dose of 1.7 M cells/kg body weight. While the healthy dogs received lower doses of islets (Table 3), the volume of beads was significantly higher as half of the microspheres injected were empty in order to establish possible foreign body responses to the beads alone. Despite being non-diabetic, there were no hypoglycemic events measured. Importantly, the dogs had high creatinine kinase, high unconjugated bilirubin, high potassium and low calcium levels prior to the infusion of islets (Table 6). After the encapsulated islet transplant, the values either normalized or were closer to the normal values. This is noteworthy, because other microspheres encapsulants, such as polymethylmethacrylate have elicited abnormal liver enzyme values [50]. There was only a temporary increase in fibrinogen levels one week after transplants that normalized by the study termination (Table 7).

For the diabetic animals (#5–7), abnormal liver enzymes were noted prior to the transplants when the animals were receiving insulin injections to control blood glucose, but all were normalized by the week following the transplants and remained normal through the duration of the study (Table 6). Cell counts showed low MCHCs prior to the transplants in the diabetic dogs that normalized by the end of the study (Table 7). Only fibrinogen levels were normal prior to the transplants and became or remained high after the transplants.

PEG hydrogels have been reported to elicit a foreign body response (FBR) including when using PEGDA [51-54]. In this study, retrieved microspheres at 2 or 4 weeks from healthy dogs and between 58–65 days in the diabetic dogs showed no obvious cellular overgrowth as shown in Fig 8A. At 14 days, there was some moderate multilocular inflammatory responses in the surrounding tissue showing a mild foreign body response (Fig 6A). However, 2 weeks later the local inflammation had decreased to a mild level (Fig 6B) and at 7–9 weeks in the diabetic dogs there were minimal signs of a foreign body response except for a few microspheres attached to the liver (Fig 7C). This may not be surprising, as the liver has the largest concentration of phagocytic cells in the body [55]. Further, when the microspheres clustered together rather than individual spheres within the tissue a strong foreign body response was noted (Fig 7D). The results agree with previous publications showing that a modified PEG elicited a FBR shortly after implantation that stabilized or resolved by 4 weeks [54]. In fact, all non-biological material will elicit some level of FBR, but the more severe responses will likely lead to graft failure.

Conclusions

The PEGDA encapsulated islets provided a durable normalization of blood glucose for 60 days at the highest dose tested in agreement with our earlier mouse data showing reversal of diabetes for more than 110 days [21]. Thus, we have shown in both rodents and dogs that a long-term reversal of diabetes can be achieved with PEGDA microencapsulation. Modifications of PEGDA may further optimize its ability to enhance islet cell function while protecting the cells from the immune system, thus reducing the final dose required to achieve normoglycemia.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

14 Oct 2021

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Seda Kizilel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the Full ARRIVE 2.0 Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf (PDF). Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[Yes, Likarda, LLC supported the research described here. No grants funded these experiments.].

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

[I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests:

SH and FK are employees of Likarda, LLC.  SJW is a former employee of Likarda, LLC. LSB and KR are employees and co-owners of Likarda, LLC. SH and KR are co-inventors on the CSS technology used to create the microspheres tested in this manuscript].

Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  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.

Please include your updated Competing Interests statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

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: The manuscript presents an interesting approach in which an oil-free method is used to produce PEGDA microgels (UV-crosslinked), and these biomaterials are used as immuneprotective carriers for the transplantation of pancreatic islets in dogs. This is a thourough study that showcases the developed materials as promising platforms for islet transplantation. The manuscript, however, lacks the presentation of data in bulk (in plots, for example), showcasing quantitative data and statistical analysis concerning the overall output of the in vivo study (cell viability pre-and after transplantation, presence of insulin-positive islets after explant, ability of islets to respond to glucose stimulation after explant, average and error of glucose concentration on transplanted individuals vs controls overtime, etc). Overall, the lack of bulk data and statistical analysis severely weakens the manuscript. Additionally, histological analysis of the tissues after transplantation is needed to exclude the formation of a fibrotic capsule (although not visible) or pro-inflammatory environment surrounding the capsules. Therefore, I believe that after data treatment and bulk statistical treament of data (and further discussion), the manuscript may be suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: Harrington and colleagues studied microencapsulated canine islet allotransplantation and provided interesting results as pilot study. However, there are major issues needed to be addressed in this study.

1) In section of “Cytotoxicity of CSS Crosslinking Procedure”, authors performed analysis on the effect of CaCl2 concentration and presence of initiator, showed the changes on viability. For these cells, investigation of viability and functionality are crucial to see the performance of the proposed system. Because it will be a system functioning as a pancreatic endocrine tissue, changes in insulin secretion should also be reported. Viability alone will not be sufficient.

2) For different concentrations of CaCl2 and initiator, how is the size of the spheres affected?

3) How is the islet size and cell number related to the insulin secretion response? How will the stimulation index change?

4) Although explanations about histological analysis is given, figures of such study will be useful.

5) In Table 1, viabilities are around 60%-75%. Is this level acceptable for the transplant? Can authors comment on whether the possibility of factors released from that much of dead cells can contribute the immune response observed?

6) In healthy animals, as controls, microsphere only group is mentioned, but as in Table 1, healthy animals also received islet transplantation. These animals have already functional islets so there is no use of transplantation for them. But the lack of control group is problematic. If there is any data, it should be provided for a comparison.

7) Figure 3 shows post-encapsulation viability above 97.5% whereas in Table 1, it is around 60%-75%. Can authors explain the reason for such difference?

8) After which level of glucose (mg/dl) authors accepted dogs diabetic?

9) In the manuscript, authors mostly compared diabetics dogs #5-7 with healthy #1. What about #2-4? Did they show similar results with #1?

10) Changes in the blood glucose levels in healthy animals should be provided throughout the study.

11) Healthy animal group is composed female dogs and diabetic ones are male. Is there a specific reason for this?

12) In section “Explanted Microspheres”, there are no Figure 7C and Figure 7D. Figure 7C should be Figure 8B. Figure 7D should be Figure 8C.

13) When comparing groups, animals having same period of treatment should be used. For example, comparisons are made between #1 and #5-7. But post encapsulation duration is referred as nearly 1 month for #1 and for #5-7, it is about 2 months. For example, for both groups, it should be 1 month or 2 months.

14) After optimization, which condition is used to encapsulate islets for transplantation?

15) Did authors count how many islets are there in each microspheres?

16) What is the porosity of PEG hydrogel?

17) Can authors comment on reason on why #5-7 show different profiles on insulin levels (Figure 6)?

**********

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: Yes: Tugba Bal

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

21 Feb 2022

Nov 28, 2021

Response to editors comments: PEGDA Microencapsulated Allogeneic Islets Reverse Canine Diabetes without Immunosuppression, Harrington et al.

Editor’s Comments

We recommend that you provide quantitative data, insulin secretion function of islets and statistical analysis concerning the overall output of the in vivo study (cell viability pre-and after transplantation, presence of insulin-positive islets after explant, ability of islets to respond to glucose stimulation after explant, average and error of glucose concentration on transplanted individuals vs controls overtime, etc).

In response to the editor’s comments, we have added the following data:

A full dose-response graph of insulin secretion to glucose concentrations of unencapsulated cells has been added to the manuscript (Figure 1D). We also added the results of static insulin secretion in low and high glucose after encapsulation (Figure 2D).

In the original submission, we included figures with the twice daily non-fasting blood glucose readings for each of the diabetic dogs with the goal of providing the maximum data points for the study. In addition, we struggled with how to compare the animals on the same graph with time as the X axis, when the second transplants for dog 5 and 7 were done at different time points relative to their first transplants. However, based on the editor’s and reviewers’ comments, we appreciate that they prefer to see direct comparisons on the same graph, we have included three new graphs for Figure 4.

First, we had discussed changes in body weight in the first submission, but did not show the data. Figure 4A now graphs the weekly body weights of the dogs. To make a valid comparison of blood glucose with the non-diabetic dogs, we included a new graph with the weekly fasting blood glucose readings (Figure 4B). Since fasting blood glucose was only taken once per week, there are no error bars on this graph. In addition, we re-graphed the original Figures 5A, B, and C into a single graph with twice weekly averages and standard error bars (new Figure 4C).

A new graph was added, comparing viability pre and post-transplantation (Figure 8C)

We were unable to obtain GSIS values from explants because the majority of microspheres were attached to tissue as shown in Figures 5A and B. In attempting to dislodge the attached spheres, they were damaged to the point that they were not valid for a GSIS study and there were insufficient numbers of free microspheres to conduct GSIS. Thus, the free microspheres were used to determine explant viability and insulin staining with dithizone. The new graph showing the percentage of insulin positive cells before and after transplantation is Figure 9B.

Additional changes were made to the manuscript in response to the reviewers’ comments including two new figures with examples of the histology results (Figures 6 & 7) . Additional data was added to the tables, including the number of clusters/spheres.

Finally, statistical analysis was run on all comparison assays.

All changes are highlighted with track changes in the manuscript.

Taken together, these substantial changes vastly improve the completeness and the clarity of the manuscript.

________________________________________

Reviewers’ 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: The manuscript presents an interesting approach in which an oil-free method is used to produce PEGDA microgels (UV-crosslinked), and these biomaterials are used as immuneprotective carriers for the transplantation of pancreatic islets in dogs. This is a thourough study that showcases the developed materials as promising platforms for islet transplantation. The manuscript, however, lacks the presentation of data in bulk (in plots, for example), showcasing quantitative data and statistical analysis concerning the overall output of the in vivo study (cell viability pre-and after transplantation, presence of insulin-positive islets after explant, ability of islets to respond to glucose stimulation after explant, average and error of glucose concentration on transplanted individuals vs controls overtime, etc). Overall, the lack of bulk data and statistical analysis severely weakens the manuscript. Additionally, histological analysis of the tissues after transplantation is needed to exclude the formation of a fibrotic capsule (although not visible) or pro-inflammatory environment surrounding the capsules. Therefore, I believe that after data treatment and bulk statistical treament of data (and further discussion), the manuscript may be suitable for publication.

We appreciate the comments made by the reviewer and agree with their perspective. However, some of the experiments that the reviewer requests are not possible in the dog model. For example, we could only retrieve the loose microspheres from the dogs after euthanasia. As shown in the original Figure 7 (now Figure 5), the vast majority of microspheres were adhered to the tissue. With the limited number of loose microspheres, we conducted viability and dithizone staining, which we included as examples in the original submission. In the revision, we have added the graphs that the reviewer requests for viability and percentage of dithizone (insulin-producing) clusters – new Figures 8C and 9B.

Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, we created a new graph that directly compares the diabetic to non-diabetic animals’ blood glucose over time (new Figure 4B). However, it is important to point out that the study was not designed with the non-diabetic animals serving as controls for the diabetic animals. Rather the study design was two-fold. The first aim was to determine biocompatibility of the transplants in non-diabetic dogs. Second was to obtain pilot data on the efficacy of the transplants in chemically-induced diabetic dogs. In the revision, we have made a strong attempt to avoid confusion by stating more clearly the aims of the study arms and the scientific design. In the new blood glucose comparison graph (Figure 4B) it is obvious that the time monitored post-transplant is very different for the two groups because the aims were different. We also created a new graph of the twice/weekly average of non-fasting blood glucose for the diabetic animals (Figure 4C).

Finally, statistical analysis was applied when appropriate.

Reviewer #2: Harrington and colleagues studied microencapsulated canine islet allotransplantation and provided interesting results as pilot study. However, there are major issues needed to be addressed in this study.

1) In section of “Cytotoxicity of CSS Crosslinking Procedure”, authors performed analysis on the effect of CaCl2 concentration and presence of initiator, showed the changes on viability. For these cells, investigation of viability and functionality are crucial to see the performance of the proposed system. Because it will be a system functioning as a pancreatic endocrine tissue, changes in insulin secretion should also be reported. Viability alone will not be sufficient.

We realize that we were not clear about the design and rationale of the precursor study. The original Figure 1 described the canine islets prior to encapsulation. Figure 2 summarized an optimization study using the precursors in their liquid form, not as crosslinked hydrogels. This was simply to optimize the precursor formulation. We subsequently encapsulated the cells with the optimized precursors and then tested viability, dithizone staining and insulin secretion (Figure 3). From the reviewer’s comments, we realize that the hydrogel optimization experiment did not fit with the major aims of the two studies. It was work done leading up to the canine transplants. Therefore, we have removed Figure 2 from the original submission and all associated text.

In the resubmission, we have added text to better describe the progression and rationale of the experiments found in the last paragraph of the introduction (page 6) in the methods section (page 12).

2) For different concentrations of CaCl2 and initiator, how is the size of the spheres affected?

In general, as the concentration of either CaCl2 or the initiator decrease, the size of the microspheres increases. However, we have removed the section of the manuscript that tested different calcium concentrations on cell toxicity.

3) How is the islet size and cell number related to the insulin secretion response? How will the stimulation index change?

We have published extensively on the correlations between islet size, cell number and insulin secretion and the results indicate that smaller islets release more insulin per cell. We have added a section on page 22 in the discussion, referencing our previous publications.

4) Although explanations about histological analysis is given, figures of such study will be useful.

We agree and have added histology figures for the diabetic canine experiments to the original pathologists description (new Figures 6 and 7).

5) In Table 1, viabilities are around 60%-75%. Is this level acceptable for the transplant? Can authors comment on whether the possibility of factors released from that much of dead cells can contribute the immune response observed?

The reviewer makes an excellent point and one that we have considered extensively but failed to include it in the manuscript. The most recent publication from the Collaborative Islet Transplant Registry shows that the range of islet viability in human islet transplants was from 62-98% with averages between 87 – 94%. Our canine post-encapsulation viability ranged from 67-75% (not 60-75%), well within the range of human islet transplantations.

Canine islets are less compact and more difficult to isolate as we have shown in previous publications, resulting in viability that is on the lower end of the acceptable range. We added a new paragraph in the discussion to cover this topic and the potential impact on the immune response that was noted in our study (page 23). However, as we described in the original submission, the purpose of the biocompatibility study was to determine whether there was an impact on the surrounding tissue with empty microspheres compared to microspheres containing allogeneic islets. As shown in the new Figures 6C and D, there was no difference in the immune response surrounding empty microspheres (without cells) compared to cell-containing microspheres. This observation reduces the likelihood that dead cells caused the response, and this explanation has been added to the discussion (page 23).

6) In healthy animals, as controls, microsphere only group is mentioned, but as in Table 1, healthy animals also received islet transplantation. These animals have already functional islets so there is no use of transplantation for them. But the lack of control group is problematic. If there is any data, it should be provided for a comparison.

The reviewer is correct that the healthy dogs received empty beads and beads with islets. As stated above, that portion of the study was designed as a safety/biocompatibility study for subsequent FDA submission as preclinical data. It was never designed to serve as a control for the diabetic animals. We have attempted to make that point more clearly in the introduction and in the methods section (page 12).

The study design for the diabetic efficacy study was a pre-post design. We now show fasting blood glucose values 14-20 days prior to the transplants compared to the values up to 7 weeks after the transplants in the new Figure 4B

In addition, there is an ethical decision to be made when using chemically induced dogs as a transplant model. Knowing from historical literature that unencapsulated islets transplanted into immune-competent dogs will result in transplant failure, we chose to compare the effects of unencapsulated versus encapsulated islets in a lower animal model (mice). Those data have already been published in Harrington et al, 2020 and we have directed the readers to that publication on page 22 of this revised submission.

7) Figure 3 shows post-encapsulation viability above 97.5% whereas in Table 1, it is around 60%-75%. Can authors explain the reason for such difference?

The difference in those values is due to the experimental conditions. The calcium and the photoinitiator (Irgacure) toxicity studies were done in solution. The cells were not in fully cross-linked hydrogel microspheres, as we were testing the precursors to encapsulation. Given the confusion that the original Figure 3 caused and the fact that it did not directly fit within the aims of the studies, we have removed it and the associated text.

8) After which level of glucose (mg/dl) authors accepted dogs diabetic?

We were at fault for not providing the criteria for the diabetic state in dogs. We have corrected this error on page 13 of the current manuscript. Blood glucose in the diabetic dogs was persistent non-fasting blood glucose of over 250 mg/dL for a week.

9) In the manuscript, authors mostly compared diabetics dogs #5-7 with healthy #1. What about #2-4? Did they show similar results with #1?

We assume that the reviewer is referring to Table 7 where we only listed dogs that had abnormal CBC or hematology results. In those cases, dog #1 most commonly had out-of-range values compared to the other healthy dogs. However, in the supplemental data tables, ALL lab values (within range and out-of-range) for the 7 dogs were provided.

10) Changes in the blood glucose levels in healthy animals should be provided throughout the study.

The fasting blood glucose values for the non-diabetic dogs has been added to the results section as Figure 4B. It is important to note that this healthy animal study was designed to look at acute (2 and 4 week) biocompatibility rather than as a comparison for the diabetic treated animals. Thus, values for those animal only go through weeks 2-4 post-transplant.

11) Healthy animal group is composed female dogs and diabetic ones are male. Is there a specific reason for this?

The sex differences in the study were simply due to the animals that were available at the CROs where the studies were conducted. We are planning to repeat this study using differentiated induced pluripotent stem cells rather than canine islets. In that subsequent study, we will be utilizing equal numbers of male and female animals.

12) In section “Explanted Microspheres”, there are no Figure 7C and Figure 7D. Figure 7C should be Figure 8B. Figure 7D should be Figure 8C.

Thank you for the correction. We have made these edits.

13) When comparing groups, animals having same period of treatment should be used. For example, comparisons are made between #1 and #5-7. But post encapsulation duration is referred as nearly 1 month for #1 and for #5-7, it is about 2 months. For example, for both groups, it should be 1 month or 2 months.

Again, the confusion is our fault for not clearly describing the aims and experimental design of the two separate study arms. We have added text in both the abstract, introduction, methods and discussion to clarify this point.

14) After optimization, which condition is used to encapsulate islets for transplantation?

As stated in the methods section, 100 mM calcium with PEGDA and 0.025% irgacure were utilized for the formulation of the microspheres. However, we have removed the optimization data from the revision.

15) Did authors count how many islets are there in each microspheres?

Based on the reviewer’s comments, we analyzed the saved images of the microspheres prior to transplantation and counted the islets/microsphere. These data have been added to the manuscript in Tables 1 and 2 with along with the statistical analysis.

16) What is the porosity of PEG hydrogel?

We have previously published the characteristics of the PEGDA microspheres in Harrington et al, 2020 and Hamilton et al, 2021. There we directly measured the functional porosity by quantifying the diffusion rate of molecules of various sizes out of the impregnated microspheres. Statements directing the reader to the previous characterization was added to page 22 of the discussion.

17) Can authors comment on reason on why #5-7 show different profiles on insulin levels (Figure 6)?

The original Figure 6 did not include any data related to insulin levels. The Figures only showed the daily blood glucose values. The author may have confused the text with each graph which stated the dose (cells/kg) for each transplant to remind the reader that the 3 dogs did not receive the same number of islets.

Now that the blood glucose data has been combined into 2 figures, we do not list the cells/kg on the figure, although it is included in Table 3. In the first submission, we included the insulin requirement pre- and post-transplant in Table 4. For the resubmission, we also added the insulin administration for the first 4 dogs, which was of course zero.

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE review response.docx

Click here for additional data file.

18 Apr 2022

PEGDA microencapsulated allogeneic islets reverse canine diabetes without immunosuppression

PONE-D-21-28658R1

Dear Dr. Lisa Stehno-Bittel ,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Seda Kizilel, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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

**********

6. 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Authors addressed all my comments and I would to thank for their effort. All a final comment, on tables, plus sign should be plus minus sign.

**********

7. 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

16 May 2022

PONE-D-21-28658R1

PEGDA Microencapsulated Allogeneic Islets Reverse Canine Diabetes without Immunosuppression

Dear Dr. Stehno-Bittel:

I'm 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 let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Seda Kizilel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE