Article

Humoral immunity is the dominant barrier for allogeneic bone marrow engraftment in sensitized recipients.

Institute for Cellular Therapeutics, Ste 404, University of Louisville, 570 S Preston St, Louisville, KY 40202-1760, USA.
Blood (Impact Factor: 9.78). 12/2006; 108(10):3611-9. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2006-04-017467
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We evaluated the relative contribution of the humoral and cellular arms of the immune response to bone marrow cells transplanted into sensitized recipients. We report here for the first time that humoral immunity contributes predominantly to allosensitization. Although the major role for nonmyeloablative conditioning is to control alloreactive host T cells in nonsensitized recipients, strikingly, none of the strategies directed primarily at T-cell alloreactivity enhanced engraftment in sensitized mice. In evaluating the mechanism behind this barrier, we found that humoral immunity plays a critical role in the rejection of allogeneic marrow in sensitized recipients. Adoptive transfer of as little as 25 microL serum from sensitized mice abrogated engraftment in secondary naive recipients. With the use of microMT mice as recipients, we found that T-cell-mediated immunity plays a secondary but still significant role in allorejection. Targeting of T cells in sensitized B-cell-deficient microMT mice enhanced alloengraftment. Moreover, both T- and B-cell tolerance were achieved in sensitized recipients when allochimerism was established, as evidenced by the acceptance of second donor skin grafts and loss of circulating donor-specific Abs. These findings have important implications for the management of sensitized transplant recipients and for xenotransplantation in which B-cell reactivity is a predominant barrier.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: One significant obstacle to the success of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is represented by graft failure, defined as either lack of initial engraftment of donor cells (primary graft failure) or loss of donor cells after initial engraftment (secondary graft failure). Graft failure mediated by host immune cells attacking donor stem cells is named graft rejection. Factors associated with graft failure include HLA disparity in the donor/recipient pair, underlying disease, viral infections, type of conditioning regimen and stem cell source employed. Areas covered: In this article, the experts summarize current approaches to treat graft failure/rejection after HSCT, and they discuss new strategies of graft manipulation and immune therapy of particular interest for preventing/treating this complication. Expert opinion: A limited array of options is available to treat graft failure. The experts believe that re-transplantation from another donor or the same donor (if there is no evidence of immunologically mediated graft failure) is the treatment of choice for patients with primary graft failure or acute graft rejection. The experts think that strategies based on innovative approaches of graft manipulation, new agents or cellular therapies could render in the future graft failure a much less relevant problem for HSCT recipients.
    Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy 10/2013; · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Desensitization protocols are being used worldwide to enable kidney transplantation across immunologic barriers, i.e. antibody to donor HLA or ABO antigens, which were once thought to be absolute contraindications to transplantation. Desensitization protocols are also being applied to permit transplantation of HLA mismatched hematopoietic stem cells to patients with antibody to donor HLA, to enhance the opportunity for transplantation of non-renal organs, and to treat antibody-mediated rejection. Although desensitization for organ transplantation carries an increased risk of antibody-mediated rejection, ultimately these transplants extend and enhance the quality of life for solid organ recipients, and desensitization that permits transplantation of hematopoietic stem cells is life saving for patients with limited donor options. Complex patient factors and variability in treatment protocols have made it difficult to identify, precisely, the mechanisms underlying the downregulation of donor-specific antibodies. The mechanisms underlying desensitization may differ among the various protocols in use, although there are likely to be some common features. However, it is likely that desensitization achieves a sort of immune detente by first reducing the immunologic barrier and then by creating an environment in which an autoregulatory process restricts the immune response to the allograft.
    Immunological Reviews 03/2014; 258(1):183-207. · 12.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While it is well known that CD4(+) T cells and B cells collaborate for antibody production, our group previously reported that CD8(+) T cells down-regulate alloantibody responses following transplantation. However, the exact mechanism involved in CD8(+) T cell-mediated down-regulation of alloantibody remains unclear. We also reported that alloantibody production is enhanced when either perforin or FasL is deficient in transplant recipients. Here, we report that CD8(+) T cell-deficient transplant recipient mice (high alloantibody producers) exhibit an increased number of primed B cells compared to WT transplant recipients. Furthermore, CD8(+) T cells require FasL, perforin and allospecificity to down-regulate posttransplant alloantibody production. In vivo CD8-mediated clearance of alloprimed B cells was also FasL- and perforin-dependent. In vitro data demonstrated that recipient CD8(+) T cells directly induce apoptosis of alloprimed IgG1(+) B cells in co-culture in an allospecific and MHC class I-dependent fashion. Altogether these data are consistent with the interpretation that CD8(+) T cells down-regulate posttransplant alloantibody production by FasL- and perforin-dependent direct elimination of alloprimed IgG1(+) B cells.
    American Journal of Transplantation 02/2014; 14(2):295-304. · 6.19 Impact Factor