How Close Are The Cell Makeup Of Animals To Humans
Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2000 Jan; 13(1): iii–6.
Animal organs for human being transplantation: how shut are we?
Marlon F. Levy
1From Transplantation Services, Baylor Academy Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.
Abstract
Solid organ transplantation has been, past virtually measures, a astounding success. Nonetheless, the field is plagued past extreme shortages of bachelor organs from a very limited number of donors. One potential solution to this organ availability crunch is the use of animals as organ donors for humans (xenotransplantation). Though the concept remains theoretical, significant advances are existence made in the field of genetics and in our understanding of the immunological barriers to xenotransplantation. With these advances also comes increased knowledge about the potential risks of xenotransplants, especially disease transmission. The eventual clinical awarding of creature-to-human transplants will crave a careful, balanced appraisal of these issues.
Organ transplantation has been i of the astounding success stories of the latter office of the 20th century. For decades the province of a few assuming researchers and clinicians who often captured the public's attending, this field is at present solidly entrenched in modern medical therapy. Since the early on 1980s, hundreds of thousands of patients have received new kidneys, livers, and hearts (1). Other organs (lung, pancreas, and intestine) are as well routinely transplanted, admitting in smaller numbers. The clinical results of these interventions have meant the restoration of meaningful, productive, and active lives to recipients of all organs (2–4).
Vexingly, the transplant community has non been able to meet the need for donor organs that these clinical successes accept generated. To be sure, increases in donor organ availability have been noted over the final decade. But these take been explained past an increase in "living" donors (primarily for kidneys but to some extent for livers and lungs) and by the increasing employ of cadaver donors that, years ago, would take been deemed unsuitable (the so-called "marginal" or "expanded" donors). The gap between organ need and organ availability continues to widen despite very substantial public education efforts on organ donation (five) (Figure 1). Deaths on the waiting list occur at a rate of x patients a day, and patients' waiting times for all major organs keep to grow (1)(Figure ii).
Numbers of patients waiting and mean waiting times for (a) livers, (b) kidneys, and (c) hearts. Source: United Network for Organ Sharing (one).
Number of patients waiting for solid organ transplantation and number of waiting list deaths. Source: United Network for Organ Sharing (1).
Confronting this background of such a pressing need, the case is fabricated for finding an alternative, more plentiful supply of replacement organs for homo transplantation. Recent advances in our understanding of the immunologic barriers betwixt humans and animals take brought the field of clinical xenotransplantation (transplantation across species barriers) closer to reality than ever before, nonetheless real and potential obstacles exist and are the subject area of this article.
THE "IDEAL" DONOR ANIMAL
A long list emerges when we consider the preferred characteristics of animals appropriate to be organ donors for humans. First, the animate being should be of compatible anatomy and physiology for the intended organ to function well in humans. Next, no possibility of cross-species (i.east., animal-to-man) infection should exist. In fact, an ideal animal donor organ should resist human diseases (especially viral) too. Farther, this animal species should be cheap to feed and breed, with short gestation times and multiple births per litter to achieve economies of scale. Such an animal should also present no immunologic barriers to transplantation into humans. Finally, use of this animal in this mode should engender little or no ethical controversy.
An animal species meeting all of the above criteria does not exist. Nonhuman primates (apes and monkeys) are almost similar humans anatomically and physiologically. Further, they may possess resistance to sure homo diseases. In fact, this aspect (resistance to HIV and hepatitis B virus) has led to the experimental utilise of baboon livers as xenografts (six). Nonetheless, the xenotransplant community seems to have abandoned hopes of using nonhuman primates as xenograft donors primarily because of infectious risks to human being patients and their contacts. Some monkey viruses—for example, canker 8—are mortiferous to humans in a affair of days (7). The costs of raising pathogen-free herds in large enough numbers to satisfy clinical need are felt to be prohibitive. Finally, the ethical obstacles to using nonhuman primates as organ donors for humans are considerable (viii, 9).
The hog, with its large litters (up to 10 littermates), curt gestation times (4 months), anatomic/physiologic similarities to humans, widespread use for human consumption (an estimated 90 one thousand thousand pigs consumed yearly in the U.s.), and long history of providing medicinals (skin, insulin, cardiac prostheses, clotting factors) for humans, has get the most likely candidate for consideration as an organ donor. To be sure, of import differences in porcine physiology, including that of the coagulation cascade, may represent meaning obstacles (10–12). Immunologic barriers, though increasingly understood, are likewise far from being overcome.
THE PUBLIC DIALOGUE
Over the past several years, a significant amount of public dialogue on xenotransplantation has taken place. In the U.s.a., this dialogue has been in the form of numerous public meetings held by diverse regulatory agencies, informational groups, and quasigovernmental bodies (Table). In the U.k., this fence has often been framed within the context of potential infectious risks to humans and a very public scare over "mad cow disease" (bovine-to-human transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob affliction).
Table
Recent public meetings in the field of xenotransplantation
| Coming together | Dates |
| Food and Drug Administration Biologics | December 1994, Apr 1995, July 1995 |
| National Academy of Sciences/Found of Medicine | June 1995, June 1996 |
| Public Health Service Workshops | June 1997, January 1998 |
| Food and Drug Administration December Xenotransplantation Subcommittee | December 1997, May 1999 |
| New York Academy of Sciences/Part for Economic Cooperation and Evolution | March 1998 |
The British authorities, dissimilar its American counterpart, has however to let clinical research in xenotransplantation (xiii). In the USA, the Food and Drug Administration is monitoring ongoing clinical trials in both organ and cellular xenotransplantation, including a trial hither at Baylor. In the scientific literature, factions both for and against a moratorium on xenotransplant research have adult. The argument for a moratorium relies on the putative risks of infection transmission. Except for one strident voice, the trend seems to support the cautious continuation of this research (14–sixteen). To date, no evidence exists that pigs take transmitted diseases to humans (17–19).
IMMUNOLOGIC BARRIERS AND PRECLINICAL RESULTS
The use of pig organs equally xenografts came one stride closer to reality with the discovery in humans of naturally occurring antibodies cross-reacting with porcine cells, including, importantly, the porcine vascular endothelium (20, 21). These xenoreactive antibodies are both IgM and IgGs, may exist as the result of crossreactivity with enteric bacteria, and are found in humans and Erstwhile World monkeys. They demark in the pig with an α1,three-galactose carbohydrate rest, which morphologically resembles the ABO blood group antigens (22). This antigen is present in very high numbers (107 receptors) on the grunter vascular endothelial cell. Unmodulated, perfusion of human blood through pig organs leads to prompt antigen-antibody binding, complement activation, endothelial cell permeability, and capillary fibrin deposition with ischemia—hence, hyperacute rejection.
A number of approaches have been proposed to reduce or eliminate this anti-α-Gal–α1,three-Gal interaction. These include antibody absorption through pretransplant organ (lung or liver) or immunoaffinity column perfusion, the continuous infusion of antibody-depleting (competitive) carbohydrates, the modification of animals lacking (or with profoundly reduced) α1,3-Gal antigens, and adaptation (22). These strategies are in various stages of development; none have reached clinical testing.
A more promising and more tested approach has been modifying pigs through microinjection techniques and in vitro fertilization so that they are "humanized" for certain complement-regulatory proteins (23, 24). Since complement activation following antigen-antibiotic binding is felt to be species-specific, organs from such animals, lacking in porcine complement-regulatory proteins, would upon anti-α-Gal–α1,3-Gal binding not activate complement and not undergo hyperacute rejection. In life-supporting pig-to-primate models using transgenic pigs as kidney donors, this strategy has yielded survivals of up to 35 days after transplant (25). Orthotopic cardiac transplantation has given survivals of up to 3 weeks when used with antibody depletion, lymphoid irradiation, and vigorous immunosuppression (26). Overall, though, these preclinical studies have not fabricated use of country-of-the-fine art immunosuppressants now commonplace in man allotransplantation (i.e., tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil).
Even postulating a greatly diminished or eliminated adventure of hyperacute rejection, immunologic barriers to xenotransplantation volition probably exist more meaning than those of allotransplantation. Delayed xenograft rejection (accelerated vascular rejection), probably the result of anti-α-Gal antibodies, looms after several days' exposure to a xenograft (27). The man T jail cell antiporcine response is probably considerable, mediated past both direct and indirect recognition of xenoantigens. CD4+ and CD8+ T cells probably effigy prominently in these processes (28). Equally with allotransplantation, tolerance is felt to exist the sought-afterwards reply to rubber, effective immunosuppression for xenotransplantation.
POTENTIAL XENOTRANSPLANTATION-CREATED INFECTIONS
With any proposed species of organ donors for humans, the loudest opposition comes from fears of creating new infections heretofore unknown or poorly known (so-called "xenozoonoses"). As previously mentioned, one of the strongest arguments made thus far against nonhuman primates as potential donors is the difficulty of ensuring a safe, plentiful supply of these animals (7). An near insurmountable obstacle for advocates of nonhuman primates as xenograft donors has been the recently concluded studies that showed HIV to be merely such a zoonosis (29). The Ebola virus may ultimately exist found to fall into this category equally well (30). These viruses are believed to be nonpathogenic in their natural hosts but devastating to humans.
The recent discovery of a blazon C endogenous retrovirus in the pig (PoERV) and its power to infect human being jail cell lines in vitro has brought great scrutiny to that species as well (31–33). Patients parenterally exposed to pig tissue (islet cells, hepatic cells) or whole organs (extracorporeal hepatic and renal support) take failed to prove infection by PoERV (17–19), despite repeated testing in some cases. Currently lost in the debate is the run a risk of other potential xenozoonoses from pigs, including porcine cytomegalovirus and more than conventional bacterial pathogens. Some experts in these fields worry that transgenic pig organs, their complement-activating factors no longer porcine in configuration, may exist even more susceptible to viral infections, especially in an immunosuppressed patient (34).
SUMMARY
Significant improvements in our understanding of the immunologic barriers betwixt larger animals and humans offer the hope of the clinical application of animal-to-human transplants. More sophisticated genetic engineering of animals, as well equally more circuitous modulation of the animal-to-human antibiotic and cellular recognition, will probably need to occur for the field to move forward. Porcine organs, and non nonhuman primate ones, are the organs of choice for these endeavors. The concern over potential homo infection by animal viruses or nonviral pathogens mandates very shut scrutiny of clinical trials as they evolve.
References
one. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). 1998 Annual Report Richmond, Va: UNOS, 1999.
2. Levy MF, Jennings L, Abouljoud MS, Mulligan DC, Goldstein RM, Husberg BS, Gonwa TA, Klintmalm GB. Quality of life improvements at 1, two, and five years afterwards liver transplantation. Transplantation. 1995;59:515–518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Free MM. Professional person and personal aspects of solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. BUMC Proceedings. 1995;8(4):29–32. [Google Scholar]
4. Simmons RG, Abress L, Anderson CR. Quality of life after kidney transplantation. A prospective, randomized comparison of cyclosporine and conventional immunosuppressive therapy. Transplantation. 1988;45:415–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. The Partnership for Organ Donation . The American Public'due south Attitudes Toward Organ Donation and Transplantation; Gallop Poll Results. Boston, Mass: The Partnership for Organ Donation; 1993. [Google Scholar]
6. Starzl TE, Fung J, Tzakis A, Todo S, Demetris AJ, Marino IR, Doyle H, Zeevi A, Warty V, Michaels M, et al. Baboon-to-human liver transplantation. Lancet. 1993;341:65–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
seven. Allan JS. Xenotransplantation at a crossroads: prevention versus progress. Nat Med. 1996;2:18–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Vanderpool HY. Critical ethical issues in clinical trials with xenotransplants. Lancet. 1998;351:1347–1350. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
x. Hammer C. Physiological obstacles after xenotransplantation. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;862:19–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xi. Delriviere LD, Havaux Ten, Gibbs P, Gianello PR. Basic anatomical and physiological differences between species should be considered when choosing combinations for employ in models of hepatic xenotransplantation: an investigation of the guinea hog-to-rat combination. Transplantation. 1998;66:112–115. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Robson SC, Schulte am Esch J, II, Bach FH. Factors in xenograft rejection. Ann Northward Y Acad Sci. 1999;875:261–276. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Kennedy I. Xenotransplantation: ethical acceptability. Transplant Proc. 1997;29:2729–2730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Bach FH, Fineberg HV. Call for moratorium on xenotransplants. Nature. 1998;391:326. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xv. Sachs DH, Colvin RB, Cosimi AB, Russell PS, Sykes Yard, McGregor CG, Platt JL. Xenotransplantation—caution, but no moratorium. Nat Med. 1998;4:372–373. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Salomon DR, Ferguson RM, Helderman JH. Xenotransplants: go on with caution. Nature. 1998;392:11–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Allan JS. Cantankerous-species infection: no news is proficient news? Nat Med. 1998;four:644–645. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Levy MF, Crippin J, Sutton S, Netto G, McCormack J, Curiel T, Goldstein RM, Newman JT, Gonwa TA, Banchereau J, Diamond LE, Byrne G, Logan J, Klintmalm GB. Liver allotransplantation (OLTX) post-obit extracorporeal hepatic back up with transgenic (hCD55/hCD59) porcine livers: clinical results and lack of pig to human manual of the porcine endogenous retrovirus (PoERV). Transplantation In press. [PubMed]
nineteen. Paradis K, Langford Yard, Long Z, Heneine Due west, Sandstrom P, Switzer WM, Chapman LE, Lockey C, Onions D, Otto Eastward. Search for cantankerous-species transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus in patients treated with living hog tissue. Science. 1999;285:1236–1241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Galili U, Shohet SB, Kobrin E, Stults CL, Macher BA. Human being, apes, and Old World monkeys differ from other mammals in the expression of alphagalactosyl epitopes on nucleated cells. J Biol Chem. 1988;263:17755–17762. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Galili U, Rachmilewitz EA, Peleg A, Flechner I. A unique natural homo IgG antibody with anti-blastoff-galactosyl specificity. J Exp Med. 1984;160:1519–1531. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Cooper DK, Thall Advert. Xenoantigens and xenoantibodies: their modification. World J Surg. 1997;21:901–906. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Platt JL, Vercellotti GM, Dalmasso AP, Matas AJ, Bolman RM, Najarian JS, Bach FH. Transplantation of discordant xenografts: a review of progress. Immunol Today. 1990;11:450–456. word 456–457. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Cozzi Eastward, White DJ. The generation of transgenic pigs as potential organ donors for humans. Nat Med. 1995;1:964–966. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Zaidi A, Schmoeckel Thousand, Bhatti F, Waterworth P, Tolan One thousand, Cozzi E, Chavez G, Langford G, Thiru S, Wallwork J, White D, Friend P. Life-supporting sus scrofa-to-primate renal xenotransplantation using genetically modified donors. Transplantation. 1998;65:1584–1590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Xu H, Gundry SR, Hancock WW, Matsumiya M, Zuppan CW, Morimoto T, Slater J, Bailey LL. Prolonged discordant xenograft survival and delayed xenograft rejection in a pig-to-birdie orthotopic cardiac xenograft model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115:1342–1349. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27. Bach FH, Winkler H, Ferran C, Hancock WW, Robson SC. Delayed xenograft rejection. Immunol Today. 1996;17:379–384. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Dorling A, Lechler RI. T prison cell-mediated xenograft rejection: specific tolerance is probably required for long term xenograft survival. Xenotransplantation. 1998;5:234–245. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29. Gao F, Bailes E, Robertson DL, Chen Y, Rodenburg CM, Michael SF, Cummins LB, Arthur LO, Peeters M, Shaw GM, Abrupt PM, Hahn BH. Origin of HIV-i in the chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes. Nature. 1999;397:436–441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30. Peters CJ, LeDuc JW. An introduction to Ebola: the virus and the disease. J Infect Dis. 1999;179(Suppl 1):nine–xvi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Le Tissier P, Stoye JP, Takeuchi Y, Patience C, Weiss RA. Two sets of human-tropic pig retrovirus. Nature. 1997;389:681–682. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Patience C, Takeuchi Y, Weiss RA. Infection of human cells by an endogenous retrovirus of pigs. Nat Med. 1997;iii:282–286. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Wilson CA, Wong S, Muller J, Davidson CE, Rose TM, Burd P. Blazon C retrovirus released from porcine main peripheral blood mononuclear cells infects human cells. J Virol. 1998;72:3082–3087. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. Weiss RA. Transgenic pigs and virus adaptation. Nature. 1998;391:327–328. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Manufactures from Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) are provided here courtesy of Baylor University Medical Center
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312205/
Posted by: merrymanblene1972.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How Close Are The Cell Makeup Of Animals To Humans"
Post a Comment