BACKGROUND: A rat-to-primate cardiac xenograft model has been proposed as an alternative to the clinically relevant but more cumbersome pig-to-primate model for assessing the efficacy of strategies aimed at preventing xenograft hyperacute rejection. As in pig xenografts, the rejection of rat hearts was mediated by the binding of xenoreactive natural antibodies (XNA) and complement activation. The present study was conducted to identify target antigens recognized by cynomolgus and rhesus monkey IgM XNA on rat tissues and cells in comparison with pig cells. METHODS: The reactivity of rhesus or cynomolgus serum on pig and rat endothelial cells (ECs) was studied by flow cytometry, ELISA, and complement-dependent cytotoxicity, after removal of primate XNA by perfusion of pig livers, immunoadsorption on a Gal alpha(1,3)Gal affinity column, and enzymatic removal of alpha-galactosyl epitopes from the cell surface. Rat and pig EC extracts were also immunoprecipitated with primate serum and resolved in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The expression of the Gal alpha(1,3)Gal epitope was analyzed on rat tissues and ECs by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and Western blot, using the isolectin B4 from Griffonia simplicifolia. RESULTS: Removal of primate XNA or of alphaGal epitopes resulted in a decrease in XNA binding to pig and rat cells, leaving a similar degree of residual reactivity in the two species. At least five proteins of 260, 210, 110, 56, and 50 kDa were immunoprecipitated on rat ECs, with molecular weight similar to several proteins identified on pig ECs. These results suggest that primate XNA recognize similar antigens on rat and pig ECs. Rat cells expressed lower levels of the Gal alpha(1,3)Gal epitope than pig cells. A large proportion, but not all, of primate XNA react with this epitope on pig and rat ECs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the rat is a valuable species for the evaluation of genetic engineering strategies on the vascular endothelium aimed at preventing hyperacute xenograft rejection.
BACKGROUND: A rat-to-primate cardiac xenograft model has been proposed as an alternative to the clinically relevant but more cumbersome pig-to-primate model for assessing the efficacy of strategies aimed at preventing xenograft hyperacute rejection. As in pig xenografts, the rejection of rat hearts was mediated by the binding of xenoreactive natural antibodies (XNA) and complement activation. The present study was conducted to identify target antigens recognized by cynomolgus and rhesus monkey IgM XNA on rat tissues and cells in comparison with pig cells. METHODS: The reactivity of rhesus or cynomolgus serum on pig and rat endothelial cells (ECs) was studied by flow cytometry, ELISA, and complement-dependent cytotoxicity, after removal of primate XNA by perfusion of pig livers, immunoadsorption on a Gal alpha(1,3)Gal affinity column, and enzymatic removal of alpha-galactosyl epitopes from the cell surface. Rat and pig EC extracts were also immunoprecipitated with primate serum and resolved in sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis. The expression of the Gal alpha(1,3)Gal epitope was analyzed on rat tissues and ECs by immunohistochemistry, flow cytometry, and Western blot, using the isolectin B4 from Griffonia simplicifolia. RESULTS: Removal of primate XNA or of alphaGal epitopes resulted in a decrease in XNA binding to pig and rat cells, leaving a similar degree of residual reactivity in the two species. At least five proteins of 260, 210, 110, 56, and 50 kDa were immunoprecipitated on rat ECs, with molecular weight similar to several proteins identified on pig ECs. These results suggest that primate XNA recognize similar antigens on rat and pig ECs. Rat cells expressed lower levels of the Gal alpha(1,3)Gal epitope than pig cells. A large proportion, but not all, of primate XNA react with this epitope on pig and rat ECs. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the rat is a valuable species for the evaluation of genetic engineering strategies on the vascular endothelium aimed at preventing hyperacute xenograft rejection.
Authors: Leslie Neil Sierad; Agneta Simionescu; Christopher Albers; Joseph Chen; Jordan Maivelett; Mary Elizabeth Tedder; Jun Liao; Dan T Simionescu Journal: Cardiovasc Eng Technol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.495
Authors: B Charreau; S Ménoret; L Tesson; A Azimzadeh; M Audet; P Wolf; R Marquet; C Verbakel; J Ijzermans; P Cowan; M Pearse; A d'Apice; J P Soulillou; I Anegon Journal: Mol Med Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: Agnes M Azimzadeh; Guerard W Byrne; Mohamed Ezzelarab; Emily Welty; Gheorghe Braileanu; Xiangfei Cheng; Simon C Robson; Christopher G A McGregor; David K C Cooper; Richard N Pierson Journal: Xenotransplantation Date: 2014-09-01 Impact factor: 3.907
Authors: Bo Wang; Mary E Tedder; Clara E Perez; Guangjun Wang; Amy L de Jongh Curry; Filip To; Steven H Elder; Lakiesha N Williams; Dan T Simionescu; Jun Liao Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Donald G Harris; Prabhjot K Benipal; Xiangfei Cheng; Lars Burdorf; Agnes M Azimzadeh; Richard N Pierson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 3.240