4.6 Review

Xenotransplantation: Infectious risk revisited

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TRANSPLANTATION
Volume 4, Issue 9, Pages 1383-1390

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00542.x

Keywords

clinical trials; cytomegalovirus; ethics; herpesvirus; infection; pig; porcine endogenous retrovirus; swine; transplantation; viral recombination; xenotransplantation

Funding

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [P01 AI045897, P01 AI45897] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Xenotransplantation is a possible solution for the shortage of tissues for human transplantation. Multiple hurdles exist to clinical xenotransplantation, including immunologic barriers, metabolic differences between pigs - the source species most commonly considered - and humans, and ethical concerns. Since clinical trials were first proposed almost 10 years ago, the degree of risk for infection transmitted from the xenograft donor to the recipient has been extensively investigated. A number of potential viral pathogens have been identified including porcine endogenous retrovirus (PERV), porcine cytomegalovirus (PCMV), and porcine lymphotropic herpesvirus (PLHV). Sensitive diagnostic assays have been developed for each virus. Human-tropic PERV are exogenous recombinants between PERV-A and PERV-C sequences and are present in only a subset of swine. Porcine cytomegalovirus can be excluded from herds of source animals by early weaning of piglets. In contrast, the risks associated with PLHV remain undefined. Microbiologic studies and assays for potential xenogeneic pathogens have furthered understanding of risks associated with xenotransplantation. Thus far, clinical xenotransplantation of pig tissues has not resulted in transmission of viral infection to humans; significant risks for disease transmission from swine to humans have not been confirmed. If immunologic hurdles can be overcome, it is reasonable to initiate carefully monitored clinical trials.

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