4.6 Article

Long-Term IgG Response to Porcine Neu5Gc Antigens without Transmission of PERV in Burn Patients Treated with Porcine Skin Xenografts

Journal

JOURNAL OF IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 191, Issue 6, Pages 2907-2915

Publisher

AMER ASSOC IMMUNOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.4049/jimmunol.1301195

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Commission [LSHB-CT-2006-037377]
  2. National Institutes of Health [GM32373]
  3. International Sepharadic Education Foundation
  4. Chief Scientist Office [ETM/32] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Medical Research Council [G0900950, G0900950B] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0900950] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Acellular materials of xenogenic origin are used worldwide as xenografts, and phase I trials of viable pig pancreatic islets are currently being performed. However, limited information is available on transmission of porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV) after xenotransplantation and on the long-term immune response of recipients to xenoantigens. We analyzed the blood of burn patients who had received living pig-skin dressings for up to 8 wk for the presence of PERV as well as for the level and nature of their long term (maximum, 34 y) immune response against pig Ags. Although no evidence of PERV genomic material or anti-PERV Ab response was found, we observed a moderate increase in anti-alpha Gal Abs and a high and sustained anti-non-alpha Gal IgG response in those patients. Abs against the nonhuman sialic acid Neu5Gc constituted the anti-non-alpha Gal response with the recognition pattern on a sialoglycan array differing from that of burn patients treated without pig skin. These data suggest that anti-Neu5Gc Abs represent a barrier for long-term acceptance of porcine xenografts. Because anti-Neu5Gc Abs can promote chronic inflammation, the long-term safety of living and acellular pig tissue implants in recipients warrants further evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available